What I Think about Company of Heroes 3 (Pre-Alpha)
Vložit
- čas přidán 17. 07. 2021
- Well, I'm glad we're getting more Company of Heroes, but I'm afraid this campaign will just suck and not be as good as the old either structured campaigns or the DLC campaign from COH2 with the Americans.
Game:
store.steampowered.com/app/16...
------------------
Livestreams:
/ rimmy
Second Channel:
/ @rimmyjerrybeansman
Discord:
/ discord
Twitter:
/ rimmy_downunder
#coh #coh3 #companyofheroes3 - Hry
I will allow the detachment system on the condition that, when two mortar detachments meet, someone yells, "MORTAR KOMBAT!" and they start whacking each with the tubes over a control point as the Theme Song plays.
Robert Henry Cain is a recipient of the Victoria Cross who, among other preposterous feats performed in earning that award, used a 2" mortar at point-blank range - czcams.com/video/Bl6j7I8FWT4/video.html
I'm dying of laughter, oh my god
Warcraft 3 already did it for the dwarf mortar team. They literally come out if the workshop telling Mortar Kombat!!!
@@chinmaymenon887 i thought they were saying mortar come back
@@chinmaymenon887 this man knows the ancient secrets
"The zoom level is bad" Literally me with ever CoH game ever
I downloaded the game, enjoyed the tutorial, sadly no campaign, zoom terrible thus it's all too hectic, Uninstalled it.
*Me with no CoH game*
On both CoH1 and CoH2 there are mods that increase the zoom, in CoH1 it's mainly realism mods.
@@alicorn3924 Never had any issues with the zoom, myself.
Aka: the reason why I always abuse the active pause :/
"If you surround enemy units, they should be out of supply."
"The frontline should move with your troops."
"Multiple detachments should make up one company which then moves together."
So basically Hearts of Iron 4 (HOI4) map mechanics and the the HOI4 Division Designer.
Yeah the whole rant could be a lot shorter if he just said "make it like HOI4 mechanics"
Honestly I don't like 1, it'd make it too easy to cheese. 2 is good. 3 is good.
It's almost as if (and bear here with me, because it's a pretty outlandish theory), all those mechanics were representation of how war looked in reality? Shocker, I know.
@@mateuszchoda5560 he meant it as it's not comparable to other CoH games
@@motmot8879 Yeah, that I understand. It's just that it's kinda like complaining that CoD: WW2 and BF V have the same weapons.
*"We don't always have the best plan but that's okay."*
I took ballistics in school, fascinating subject. Things go up, things go down!
No, I'm not defending "German Technical Superiority", I'm stating the facking obvious!
You have an Anti-Tank Rifle. Over there, is a tank. FIGURE IT OUT!
That is a door, you walk through it, Now into that building!
We give anything to fight the Westerners. Those Americans are always complaining about Pioneers spam
Deadliest warrior except one guy has a heavy machinegun and the other guy has a mortar and they fight each other.
morotor
masinman
Were you a hero in the war? No, but I served in a 𝒟𝐸𝒯𝒜𝒞𝐻𝑀𝐸𝒩𝒯 of heroes.
Rimmy: "What realm did they send that tank to?"
Probably the quasi-elemental plane of tea and biscuits, where else would you find us brits?
I am currently residing in the ministry of silly walks myself
@@waffloe You find yourself in a privileged position both proffesionially and physically then but alas not all of us have the qualifications to become civil servants.
@@splat20 not at privileged as one would think! I mean any dolt can stroll in looking for a government grant. For example we had a man just the other day apply for a grant when his "silly walk" consisted of his right foot doing a forward aerial turn every alternating step and his left doing nothing silly at all!! The gall of these people, honestly!
Silly Rimmy. The Mortar detachments just point their mortars horizontally at the enemy like any other gun. That’s how it works, right?
No, they grab their mortars and bludgeon them to death, like true Scotsman. Freedom!
Nah, they hold them underslung, like a minigun.
piat
Ah yes, Lazer guided mortar shell still giving me PTSD on COH:2
Damn last time i was this quick, we're all home for Christmas or whatever we celebrate on Cadia
The soonest Christmas*
the holy day you're looking for is "Sanguinala"
Christmas is from the 20th Millennium, you *heretic*
@@OrificeHorus 2nd millenium*
@@11Survivor It's the third actually.
I got confused myself at first.
I think the problem with the campaign map is that CoH is a base building rts, rather than something like TW where you just fight with the units from the campaign map. I don't know how you'd make the two systems really mesh too well with each other.
Because you don't. This is the same Goddamn mistake they made with Dawn of War 3 as well and that died so hard it took the game series with it to the grave.
Company of Heroes have 250 max population points in Skirmish. Which means about 100 men and vehicles combined at most. Total War skirmish can reach up to 3,000 men.
@@onebigfatguy I disagree this seems more like the Ardennes campaign in 2 but with more to it
Maybe if you could build companies and upgrade them to get access to better units, like a infantry specialized company has tanks but the tanks are limited to light tanks and some medium tanks. While the tank company has access to basic infantry but also tank destroyers and heavy tanks. And surrounding infrastructure influences the support both you and the ai receive in battle.
They did a similar thing in Dark Crusade, but that one was a grid map. The buildings you built during offence stay for the defence. The offence team has more resource, to balance out the fact that the defence has buildings at the start of the skirmish.
Personally I sort of agree. Idearly I would want a huge map in real time, that you can zoom in to take command on a tactical, division level. Meanwhile, zoom out, you’ll play at strategic and operation level, moving units and setting up attacking, defending manoeuvres, as well as controlling deployment of fresh units.
"Mortars don't just walk around!"
Taliban: "How about I do... Anyway?"
That Campaign map feels a lot like the foundation of a refined version of Ardennes Assault DLC for COH2 to me, complete with unneeded add-on mechanics that could be removed
Honestly I wish they'd have just made a scaled up version of ardennes assault. They could have added extra features like the offshore bombardment and certain tiles having AA n stuff that prevents you getting air support near them.
They could have done a lot of little features to refine it and we'd probably be happy about them. But this just looks like it's trying to be a poor mans total war.
@@CM-db5cg You obviously know fuck all about the COH franchise. The campaign is purely a secondary function of the game. You play through it once and then you forget about it. The only thing which counts is the multi player functionality. Furthermore, this is a pre alpha... Lots will change before the final release.
@@gerard518 bro chill the fuck out.
I play company of hero's 2, I've played company of hero's 1. I like the multiplayer, especially if I'm playing with friends.
I also like RTS campaigns. And I don't think that's a bad thing. The genre can be used for more than competative multiplayer. I mean hell this isn't CoD, in company of hero's 2 I solidly believe that you could get your moneys worth without even touching the multiplayer.
The campaigns are also generally important to the game but its a way to familiarise new players with the games concepts without trial by firing them in multiplayer or dividing they play skirmish first.
I like the campaigns in the company of hero's series. I'll be sad if 3 isn't as enjoyable. Honestly really feels like they're going quantity over quality with how it's set up. Regardless, you don't get to gatekeep me just because I expect a sequel to have the same quality of content as its predecessors.
@@gerard518 At that point then why add a campaign side?
I was hoping for an Ardennes Assault’s Company style where you could personalize to what you required or needed depending on difficulty and personal play styles, and I personally agree with Rimmy that the individual detachment thing is mildly infuriating
Don't fall for it rimmy! The "strategic mode" is a long con to get you to play HOI4 again!
Old World Blues playthrough when
I don't know whether I'd love or hate to be a soldier under Rimmy's command.
If you are a valuable unit, you would love it
If not, *oh god*
Play with Rimmy as a commander in Arma and you’ll find out
It always ends up with his entire troops being massacred. So whether you love that or hate that is pretty much up to you
@@BLOrtega Well, actually, he’s the only braincell in ARMA, cause Digby hates command and Rimmy has to put up with his men getting themselves killed. They massacre themselves, he doesn’t do that to them.
CZcams seems to think that this game doesn't exist, almost like me when I saw the title and didn't read it all the way through
Makes sense the game isn’t complete and hasn’t been applied to the system to recognize yet
Hey Rimmy, Have you questioned why an American Corporal is giving a British (Presumably) officer orders?
I hope that gets changed to where we're at least getting yelled at by a member of the Empire or at least different actors.
You could consider him as the intelligence personnel in your hq, although why only a corporal would either be in charge of it or delivering their messages to you is another debate.
@@Robbini0 a liason could also make sense, but just, why a corporal of all people?
Might as well send a private from Vermont.
Agreed. I’m hoping it’s just a stand-in for the moment. I’ve seen there’s an American female intelligence officer working with partisans which I feel would make more sense to be British as well considering how much longer British intelligence was operating in occupied Europe. Just my personal opinion though.
Pre.
Alpha.
The whole split between total war style map and rts reminds me of the Ardennes campaign in coh2 but with more
Couldnt agree more. The Skirmish stuff was fine. Obviously rough as hell, but hey, pre-alpha. The campaign map, in its current iteration, is not interesting to me. The Ardennes Assault campaign from CoH2 was really cool. Just making that bigger would be pretty interesting.
9:28 so you want something similar to how home wars handles companies, (you buy individual units, so 1 sapper, some supply vehicles, armor, and some infantry and have that be one force with all of the units) also try out home wars if you haven’t, very good rts game both the high command and the squad to squad stuff you love.
considering this game was made by Sega, i'm surprised it wasn't called Total War: Company of Heroes
It even feels like total war
How big are the units? Do you move only few companies across whole Italy?
@@neilbreen9041 you could build more companies
Published by SEGA not made in house
There’s always Steel Division 2 or Wargame.
I feel like it is a good idea to gauge what players want from this game early in development, so I am actually ok with this game having a pre-alpha
I guess the "campaign" it's supposed to you get units and have the units in close company, and act like independent units that can be mis-matched together?
A solution to this could be that they follow a "group leader" where the forces will be used as one (and they defend a line-ish area but in smaller force), but can detach "detachments" where they can then be reassigned or act as a small, high speed low drag unit
That's kind of how the system works already. The group leader is each company, and the detachments work around them. Something they showed off in the gameplay reveal was that detachments which stand next to companies before an RTS battle provide extra units within the battle itself.
"Well, I'm glad we're getting more Company of Heroes, but I'm afraid this campaign will just suck and not be as good as the old either structured campaigns or the DLC campaign from COH2 with the Americans. "
My thoughts exactly. Skirmish battles are not why I loved CoH, the well-balanced missions were. This is why I can't love Iron Harvest, the dumb AI horde rush is all they've got most missions.
Anyone else think the ‘breaching’ command could lead to issues if it always ejects the occupying unit? I never play multiplayer, but I feel issues will occur there. I think there should be an internal combat that incorporates a sort of ‘melee attack’ and ‘melee defence’. Breaching doesn’t always work-sometimes a breaching force is held off.
well the time it takes to breech is a lengthy enough where the attacking unit could be killed. But i agree there should be some sort of counter to breeching. Like if the breeching squad only has two guys but the defending squad has 6 maybe you cant clear them out
@@LCTVLIVE Or maybe have additional ‘stats’ like breaching/attack and defence or something like that? Maybe highly trained units well known for their toughness (like Gurkhas, Rangers, etc.) are really good at these sort of situations? And maybe basic infantry is less efficient at it?
"1v1 my mortar detachment bro"
To be honest. I was expecting COH3 would be set in the Pacific. Would have love to see that! Plus I’m not a fan of the more brighter, colourful look of the game but that’s just a small thing. I guess we see what the end product will be.
The devs did talk about this, the grit just didn't make the launch. The deve did show off some cool concepts inline with being less bright and colourful.
@@josephtripp1466 Really. Thanks for letting me know.
Since you asked about what's the translation to "Kampfgruppe" to english is.
The closest would be a Battlegroup, altho a combat group also works.
I mean another way it's put is in Task Force but I mean they are basically the same concept
I think COH should be a base building rts with squad mechanics, focused on realistic movements and what not. This doesn’t feel like COH but that’s just my take.
It feels like CIv when it goes out from a wide map, it looks kinda funky.
I just saw this on my feed, and right now I cannot hold back just how excited I am right now at another installment coming out!! I didn't even know it's coming. I have thousands of hours on both titles so seeing this made my heart melt. Thanks for uploading this preview!!
10:35 this feels more like Civ than Totalwar with specific small units rather than platoons and companies
Map Scaling says the game should be "Army" to "Corps" level of units, but the game is titled "Company" of Heroes. Like historically the Monte Cassino Abbey was occupied by a whole Division of Fallschirmjagers so controlling "Detachments" wouldn't make sense. It like the Devs just basically took a traditional a Hex Game with Division sized units then renamed them to Detachment and called it a day.
It would have been better if it was scaled to "Regiment" sized. Then you'd have 3 Battalions of 3 Companies Each for a total of 9 Companies. Gameplay wise you select your parent division with their Plus/Minus of stats, cost, etc. Companies are either Infantry/Mechanized/Armor with their different unit compositions. Mortars/MGs/Vehicles become attachments to you Companies. Meanwhile "Detatchments" basically are temporary companies with limited attachments to either block the enemy or screen your own force.
Also Behind enemy lines is stupid when the Frontlines are based off capturing cities not the units' access to suppy lines.
"Destroyer Squadron"'s Image is the USS Iowa... so yeah, I'm gonna say that's not a destroyer.
Oh god, they did use a battleship in the unit card. (The model does seem to actually be a destroyer, thought I can't be sure)
Probably a placeholder, it's a pre-alpha.
The game is 1.5 years from release, most of the icons are placeholders anyways.
"I can also only record and edit at certain hours of the day-"
*Shows picture of adorably fluffy kitty cat*
It's okay Rimmy, we all can see clearly that the adorable little meowster needs plenty of love and attention after all ^.^
I’m mostly confused why a-move is bound to q by default…
It's Relic. They haven't managed to make an even vaguely coherent control scheme in their entire history as a development studio, what's more they seemingly REFUSE to allow rebindable keys outside of third party software, which is egregious.
I don't go near their games soley for this reason, it actually just pisses me off. They need to get their shit together on that front and stop being so fucking stubborn and stupid.
@@IndustrialBonecraft They obviously went for a grid layout control scheme where the shortcuts for unit abilities correlate to their grid positions on the ability frame on the lower right. That's RTS-standard these days. however, what's also standard is A for attack-move, S for stop, etc. That's how it worked on the non-grid CoH2. I like that they went for the grid. I want them to change where the orders ARE on the grid though, to correspond better to both the standard controls AND CoH2.
@@IndustrialBonecraft didnt they literally said in their dev talk after the announcement that hot key rebind is going to be in COH3 because its been asked for. plus Q as A move hot key is corresponding to the key position on the grid, the idea is that the top roll of button will have QWER as the hot key.
tfw using AZERTY keyboard and have been using what would be Q move on a QWERTY keyboard for decades.
@@silverhand9965 Q for A move isnt something new in RTS, i recall as early as sudden strike 1 or was it blitzkrieg 1, have Q for A move. since its corresponding to the location of the button on screen its surprisingly easy to learn and memorize the hot key. plus, modern RTS created now days usually offer options for either traditional mapping or button location based mapping. the first RTS that did this as i recall is starcraft 2. in fact, i just checked, COH2 does have the option to choose the classic or grid based hotkey. so really its not as much of an issue as you make it out to be, especially since they did say it can be rebind in COH3. so i really dont see any reasons to be so up in arms about.
An Idea I have for the detachment issue; you could have a few "Basic" detachments (or Combat groups) Like riflemen, and those could be upgraded so to say, to add mortars, medics, etc to them
11:52 That plane though. Imagine Looney Tunes running away sound effects as it turns in place and flies away
Great points about the campaign detachments. I'm very much of the same opinion about them. I hope Relic watches this video and listens to these issues.
I’ve been waiting my whole petty existence for this moment
I also loved the sort of Total War combined with Company of Heroes idea, but I also found it bizarre to see a ‘heavy machine gun detachment’ and ‘mortar detachment’ running around and engaging each other. As a military historian and one that follows order of battles, it makes no bloody sense. Still, with it being pre-alpha I am hoping they will make some corrections and improvements.
I think it would be interesting if you made these detachments. Then they can't freely engage. Rather they go out and set up a entrenchment on the strategy map. Where they project a AoE around their position where if one of your actually companies are engaged in. They spawn in predetermined machine gun or mortar positions with a light infantry guard around them. So that way if you have a valley or choke point that you'd rather not allow the enemy to use. You could deploy them to hold positions those positions not 1v1 a whole armored company.
@@colbycoolby1592 THIS. This is what would fit better. I was trying to think of a way to put to words this very concept and you did it for me lol. I’m hoping the lack of a real front line will be revised and this could help
@Tristan Lane When you make a game using a grand strategy. You can't use mechanics like that as freely. The problem I see with games like this is that the developers dont realise how strategic players actually get.
Yeah sure you there is a lot of mass infantry charges that happens but, that's because the players dont have enough in-depth options to use. For instance when several companies surround an enemy company. One engagement should include all under, either the player or air's command. When a full strength company engages a low strength company. There should be a ever increasing chance for surrender or being overrun. If there is a engagement like that. The low supply company should have more and more of their units and buildings locked out due to nonexistent supply or, man power.
If you have a unit you wish to move attack should take their strategy movement cuz' they had a day long battle BUT, if a player is trying to retreat. They should be able to engage in a fighting retreat. Small style engagements where the attacker has to destroy the enemies supply depot's to half or cripple their strategy map movement. So that the attacker can get away.
If there exists something in the strategy map. There should be a mechanic in the tactical battle to reflect that.
@Tristan Lane Yeah we can agree on that last bit. I'm not really wanting to bring the battles down to squad size though. Like I said it should remain at company sized engagements. But when I said that a Company is low on supplies. I don't want them to just surrender if attack. I just think that there should be a more increasing chance of that happening. Otherwise we wouldn't have amazing events like The Lost Battalion or, the Screaming Eagle's. I was just giving justification why when two units fight they normally can't move on the strategy map. I just have a desire for more in-depth mechanics in the strategy map.
Like I said at first we both agree that the strategy map is just a...little half assed at it's current state. It attempts to emulate TW's strategy map at a surface level without the depth it should have.
@Tristan Lane Oh that is the total war I remember. I still play Rome 1 on occasion too. The mechanics of the older Total War's are far better than the newer ones and CoH3 could really use that in it's strategic map. If it does get that in-depth I'd love to see CA get kicked in it's balls. (I mean come on! I can't move troop detachments between armies to reinforce another without a HEROE!?)
I really think some of your thoughts hit the nail on the head, I'd like to see more battles (or the option). I agree about detachments being strange in the way they are implemented. I play lots of SD2 so I appreciate your comparisons. If you see this and fancy playing some Steel Division let me know!
I like your Videos, have seen 2 today :)
just wanted to say it :D
The way I'd do detachments is that each company gets a certain amount of slots that you can use to attach a detachment to. Attaching a mortar detachment to a rifle company for example would affect the way the company behaves on the strategic level by increasing its attack and allowing it to bombard or suppress an enemy company and allow them to use a unit it wouldn't normally have access to on the RTS level. Thank you for listening to my absolutely unsolicited game design suggestions.
They also promised the "most unique and versitile factions" and that the game will also take part in sicily and africa... WE BETTER GET AN ITALIAN FACTION THEN.
They wont add italian faction but italian special units, something like this i heard in the german factions or a general that can summon italian troops
@@JeyZlp Trash
Grate to see you are back rimmy hope your move is not to stressful and as always may the god of rng be with you in the games
Bro you actually said some criticism about this and that is a big + especially when many youtubers praised this pre alpha like they were in ca content creator program.
I agree with your idea of substituting units with combat groups, it would make it a lot smoother
One way to possibly improve the detachment stuff might be to add, like, an area of support(?) which I see as implementable in two ways:
Simple Way: when a detachment attacks another, units nearby give bonuses to the attacking unit; even if it's minor changes to damage done and taken, as long as you are incentivised to keep detachments together, and they also animate attacking with the main attacker then that should go a long way to lessening the weirdness.
Advanced Way: when you order an attack you get asked "Skirmish or Assault?", if you pick Skirmish, it goes through like it is currently (or following the Simple Way above), and if you pick Assault, you go into an RTS battle with your detachment, their detachment, and any other detachments close enough (possibly with units further away being able to join as reinforcements but only after a certain amount of time has passed in the RTS battle).
That set up is just me and my friends playing at one of our houses
your videos just feel like I'm listening to one of my mates ramble about a game and its so nice to be honest
Oh man, it's nice to see a new RTS from Relic, it's been such a long time since DoW 2, the last game they made
The way I view the campaign map is that you are playing a turn-based version of the rts on a large scale map, so it's the same idea of leading your company of units to capture points of interest, however, instead of towns or farmland the battle takes place over the entire region with the individual town being points of interest.
I think the best fix for the campaign map would be if you could group the detachments together, allowing them to move and attack together thus allowing you to sort of form your own custom companies.
What I’ve noticed playing through it myself, is you can attach detachments to company’s, and It can provide call ins or starting units depending on the type when in combat, maybe that needs to be described better, and also some better ways to use them/combine them?
Oh boy, can’t wait for this game to get 40k overhaul mods.
Never going to happen, only CoH 1 was able to have custom assets
CoH 2 couldnt be modded beyond number tweaks and camo paints, some mods did discover a way to circumvent the "no new models can be added" but it is severely limited and pretty much relegated to buildings only.
I think an interesting way to use the current detachment system, while offering more strategic options would be to allow the combining of detachments into larger groups. In this way, you could customize groups for specific missions. It could also be used for strategic retreats which could allow the remnants of a defeated company to meet up with, and add to existing groups.
One thing they can do for the base building is when you attack different places there would be phases. For villages there would be one phase and no base building. For towns there would be a one phases where you can't build anything (gaining a foot hold), then there would be the base building phase where your taking over the town. Then for cities it would have one no building phase, and then two base building phases where your fighting through urban strongholds.
Rimmy to your point about the world map, an idea might be to turn it into a logistical map. Depending on how well you keep your front line troops supplied can effect how the actual rts battles play out. As General Bradley once said: "Amateurs study strategy, professionals study logistics."
Honestly having a battle where your limited to what you bring sounds fun or building defensive lines( my favorite) on the map to form front lines. Suddenly death becomes a lot more important for you in battles.
I would hope they make it where you can have manufacturing hubs so some cities can become far more important.
One part I think you missed was that the reason that dynamic skirmish was so easy was because the enemy company was at 10% health, the detachments are important because they skirmish around to set up ideal conditions for you to win with your companies. They've taken the idea of Total War style battles while adapting to the realities of more modern warfare by having smaller units operating around the lines.
But yeah, definitely needs a rethink imo, won't deny I had my fun with it though.
What’s more terrifying than a Wirbelwind….. a British Wirbelwind
DEAR GOD THEY PUT A TEA MAKER IN IT!
Dont know if you know this already or have been told already, you can inbed Detachments into Companys to futher bolster them and it gives you extra starting units (sry for the meh english)
You can get some pretty OP start with the right Company, skill upgrades and Detachment combo. I just started a battle and already i have two commandos, a Bishop, a mortar team and a Captain + weasel.
A thing they could do about the strategic movement is instead of moving unit's individually, you make a plan, then execute it, and have all unit's move at the same time.
As for Detachments being able to group them together and have them support each other if they get into a fight. And a fight with Detachments should or could be fought in a RTS battle, where your unit's spawn in predetermined locations respective of where they were placed on the world map; as well as the ability to call in and pull any nearby available Detachments into a battle. Basically give the player the ability to make reserves and react to changes on the map.
Support Detachments like Medic, Engi, and Mortar could be fine running around by themselves if they are very weak by themselves, to highlight the fact that they're support and should be protected.
Another thing would be the ability for Companies to make and combined Detachments to and from itself. So say you have two Companies, and Company A just lost a lot of Riflemens during a battle. Instead of waiting for riflemens to run in from the backline, you make a bunch of Riflemen from Company B and send them to Company A.
Detachments are an interesting idea with a good amount of potential, I say, but for now, it's been executed poorly and is unfun, from what I can tell.
I'm just spitballing ideas here, and that's all I have to say for now.
Rimmy: "I have 3 moniters at different eye levels..."
Me: So? get some extra boxes to balance them precariously on, ADAPT! IMPROVISE! OVERCOME!!! >:D
Bold of you to assume he has extra boxes.
@@alexanderthegreat6682 well koalas then, whatever is most precarious to stack monitors on. ;D
20:30 -ish. So, the reason you have such a massive points advantage is because the enemy company has so little health. It seems that health directly translates into how strong your unit is at the RTS phase, as well as what kind of units you will have available. I once encountered and defeated an entire armored company which had been shelled and bombed so much that all they had left was a couple grenadiers.
I’m not even a big hardcore military strategy game fan but the whole mortar detachment thing was bugging me too. I do hope it improves though cause it looks really fun.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but when I saw the company details at 7:42 and the detachments part in the bottom of the pop up, I got the impression you could attach detachments to the companies in order to tailor build/reinforce the companies to face certain threats as you feel necessary. That I think is what the detachments are mainly for - to reinforce companies which lack a certain unit type in order to fulfil the mission you're giving them.
I can kinda see what they were going for with the detachments, it's just implemented poorly. say you recruit a mortar detachment and then it moves from wherever you got it from to the company you designated (much like how a lot of the total war games worked) then I could see a fun meta game of trying to intercept these before they reach the company, denying your opponent those specialists.
In a more idealize version of the game, the detachments themselves wouldn't be directly controllable, they just take the shortest route to the army they were assigned to, if they spot the enemy they can engage within a certain range (possibly in a small scale skirmish map, with other units close enough can participate).
The problem with their implementation is that there's no frontline to speak of, small platoons of regular riflemen can saunter right past an army and just start shooting at medics and mortars whenever they like. really this is the sort of job that you would have special forces and paratroopers doing, expensive mobile units that can move independently and get behind the lines but won't stand up to a full army coming after them. that would actually be pretty fun and would be a cool use of elite units that makes them more than just "better infantry"
i think what they are trying to do with detachment is a more precise placement with each of those detachment, like using machine guns and mortars to create killzones on the map like how you would on the tactical battle.
maybe they should add a blocking and reinforcement zone like in Total War. that way they can create the sense of an actual frontline and the supportive nature of each detachments
3:06 that wasn’t a destroyer, it was an annihilator
For some reason the Valentine was given a race car engine and it is driving me nuts to see it blitz past a Stuart
To be fair this is an alternate history game with units like the Churchill Black Prince. Why this is relavent is the RR meteor engine was planned to be given to the valentine at one point (amongst other modifications) which would have made it as speedy tank.
That said I agree it should be slow
“What realm did they send that tank to?!”
A horrifying one considering it was inhabited by the British.
Probably Luton
If anyone hasn't heard of Graviteam Tactics, its worth a look. It does an decent job with battalion/regimental level operational strategy, where turn based movement orders turn into real-time tactical engagements, dynamically drawing in nearby units and terrain to create the battlefield. Its only major weakness is that it could very well be the most complicated tactics game out there, making it hard to learn.
You can attach detachments to the companys, you then get more autobattle strength and the ability to call in the unit type of detachment you attached
Does anyone know how to get the don’t panic pdfs rimmy mentioned? I’ve tried looking, but I can’t find any.
Hope you have no issues moving into your new home. You deserve it bro
Actually, you can 'detach' detachments to compays and I think that the original intention, but enemy detachment wondering around alone is quite weird. Also, I think the reason enemy has disadvantages in that skirmish is that enemy company was badly damaged because you already defeat them while capturing avellino.
I am definitely interested, the Campaign Strategic mode has a lot of potential if done well. Been playing it for a few days now and i'll admit i see some opportunity for detachments to get a use as a cheap defensive unit with the HMGs, AT cannons etc. But you could get exactly the same by building fortifications with either Engineers or from captured points, which in part would make Airborne operations a bit more meaningful if the defenses are static.
Regardless off, i'm excited with how it might turn out. Although just kind of hope they don't put any microtransaction stuff like Commanders to get special units that are impossible to build otherwise like in COH2
About detachments - you can "garrison" up to two in a company thus reinforcing it s so i can see where they were going with that idea. But in this pre-alpha about 70-ish% of a campaign is basically detachments skirmishes.
It'd be cool if when you had larger than company battles, you had something like a topographic map with the companies as icons that you can give individual orders to, but company to company fights are auto resolved in real time
There is about an hour long interview with two devs on this game on the Three Moves Ahead podcast where they state that they're re-designing detachments to be more involved because of player feedback in the alpha
I like that you can shoot medic detachments without repercussions
*The Medikiller*
I like the idea of turning the gameplay more towards the kampfgruppe system, where you build these ad hoc formations of different platoon elements, i.e. mortars, armoured vehicles and motorised or leg infantry etc. The elements that you choose will impact what abilities and units are available to you in the tactical gameplay. I guess it would be somewhat similar to how in SD2 and Wargame you assemble a battlegroup from a deck of unit 'cards' (Of course the scale is different). I think this system would allow for greater depth of gameplay in the strategic mode.
On the strategic map I think they need to switch to divisions or regiments.
Then maybe you could zoom in to micro the smaller Battalions, companies. Together with a better frontline system this could be a very fun way to do larger campaigns. We’re you can flank units or run a spearhead attack directly at the enemy. On a small scale and a large scale.
my biggest gripe is that ground terrain that offers cover gets destroyed far far too quickly. A tank rocks up and whatever you were hiding behind or in just evaporates
They could do something like Total War, where you recruit a company leader with a particular specialty or type who can then recruit different detachments to form the forces of the company or the building types that will be on the map. Or do like the older total war games where you build different units/detachments that you can then combine together to form an army.
I'd be a fan of Star Wars EAW where you can mix and match units and types and send them into specific battles and then play a skirmish match against a defending ai force. All the while managing logistic lines and using partisans to scout cities/sabotage enemy supplies. This for a baseline has some potential.
As someone who was looking into CoH3 as his first RTS - you've pointed some issues out that I agree with. Would you happen to know good (modern) alternatives? I would really like to get into the RTS genre and CoH3 has looked quite appealing thus far.
Also, first time viewer - but definitely a subscriber! :)
when I first heard about this, and from the explanation from the intro, I thought it would be more like Ardens Assault for CoH2, where you pick a few companies to use during a assault of an area and have to capture said areas
They probably need to implement some sort of like painting system where units paint the land as they travel claiming it. Maybe different forces had different occupation strength which is like a larger brush? Idk, sorta like HOI4 but like so fluid it might cause complications.
I feel like the detachments should work like a small company, but you can also combine them to make small groups that spawn a few units for a battle that can't be reinforced
The RTS mode gives me Dawn of War 3 vibes, probably just cause of how things look tho
One way they could fix the map is making it a smaller scale thing because the scale of the unit numbers to territory just doesn't make sense. They could have subdivided the map into mini campaigns, landing, then some grand strategy stuff to keep supplies coming, secure naval support, a politics system to get some thigs faster or be hampered because you pissed the wrong guy off, then move units towards the big target you want to take and that starts the next mini campaign where you manage you companies that take out the objectives that lead to taking that big objective.
Was not expecting to see the game my college professor made be brought up. Now that is one heck of a shout-out.
I believe that if the detachments are nearby the companies when those initiate battles against other companies the detachments bring extra units to the battles.
At the strategic level you should probably just pull from dawn of war with the honor guard system- your detachments are you free units that come from the beginning with your initial base (think of starter units)
Alternatively look at the wargame series (steel division as well) that system is a solid way to do it
Hey rimmy if you were a spacemarine which chapter would you chose???
In my opinion, what they should do is they should let you make whole battalions like how you can create armies in Total War: You choose your specialist General (Infantry, Armor, Artillery, etc.) and you will get unique units to reinforce said generals (Snipers for Infantry, Tank Destroyers for Armor, Howitzers for Artillery) on top of some generic units that are use in all the General Pools. Would be a good throwback to the previous CoH games, where you choose what General you work under, you just get to use more than one General!
Also, maybe they could style the campaign more on a combination of the Ardennes DLC from CoH2, and the different sectors of Wargame. The Ports/Airports isn't a bad idea, maybe even allow the players access to limited Air Forces / Navy Forces.
Overall, the game definitely has potential, just need more tweaking here and there.
So with the detachments, I'm not sure if you noticed, but you can put them into your companies. I know that's not a full fix for your description of the issue, but I personally don't mind it.
Also, in regards to the last battle, they were already losing so badly because when you attacked the company, it was already almost dead. When I did the battle, my company was at 2/3 strength, so every unit I created was down 1 or 2 squad members when they spawned in.
19:26: the enemy company was at basically nil health. I'm not sure why you expect a bunch of maimed cripples in bandages to put up a grand assault?
Every time you said "detachment", my mind went back to the TT-40k detachment system. Then need the total war armies system, putting detachments in those, but limit it to 2 or 3 detachments per army, and make to many armies really expensive supply wise...
Wait a minute, CoH3 is in the making? Now those are some interesting new!
And now to watch the video...
Your set up is peak perfection
What I wish is that CoH3’s tactical gameplay is like HOI IV where the logistics work somewhat the same. Like if your units exit your territory it’ll have X amount of supplies which would deplete in like 3-4 days unless you re-enter your territory for 1-2 days. So that it makes your RP as Rommel during his trip to North Africa when he outran his supply lines