I was looking at games like FoW. I see that the CoH is better, 9 out of 10 ratings.

1. Can some1 tell me what is different in CoH?

2.What is this same about both of them and can i use direct control in it?

3. What is cool in it?

P.S. Add some more info about the game. Thanks!

Fow is more complex. Every soldier and unit has its own inventory, you can collect weapons and stuff from battlefield. There are neat stasthes in most of maps where you can find goodies which help you etc. Fow needs more tactical gameplay than Coh, Coh is pure RTS. And also FOW has direct control, thats a awesome feature. Cool things in Fow are maps, i like them much more than Coh maps. You can crash through buildings and woods in Fow...

check this video:
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=6191353760391783097&hl=en-CA

I have tryed Coh for a couple of days.

Fow is better in every aspect exept one, Coh was palayble out of the box FOW don´t.
Folowing Vince points , unique features are; direct control;
full destructible terrain;
Moding friendly, you can tweake almost every aspect of the game ( and has a real map/ mission builder)
Soldiers act on ther one atack defende retreat

Coh could be set in any enviroment from napoleonic wars to wharhammer 40.000 it would play the same rush & gun. I see it as a C&C a like

Fow is a much more tactical aproush, alf way to Combat mission or Close Combat.

They are both greate games, but personaly i houldn´t have experienced Coh if it was not for the hype around it. I thought it was just another Dawn of War before playing it.. and confirm it was in the first hour.

no never, CoH is rubbish in my opinion, FoW is far better

quote:

both greate games, but personaly i houldn´t have experie

So how come it costs like 50$ in store and FoW costs 20$???? Cause if ur saying that Company of Heroes suck then wtf is matter with the price???

Its because clone games sell, inovative games dont.. Look at Original War (search it up) gr8 game, you controll about 10-30 soldiers and can change there kits and build bases and make custom vehicles, its gr8 and has a gr8 story ! That didnt sell well (also due to bad marketing), so now altar makes UFO because that sells more (cause its been done befor alot with the older XCOM/UFO games..) -.-

Anyway its all down to personal choice, look at bush and tony.. there in power.. aint that showing sometime? i allways point to that sorta thing when it comes down to "the mass's love this **** more"..

Freaking DoW stand alone offical TC mod ¬.¬

quote:

Originally posted by filon102:
I was looking at games like FoW. I see that the CoH is better, 9 out of 10 ratings.

1. Can some1 tell me what is different in CoH?

2.What is this same about both of them and can i use direct control in it?

3. What is cool in it?

P.S. Add some more info about the game. Thanks!

CoH got high scores because it is waaaay more polished than FoW. Other than some frame-rate issues on some computers, CoH was smooth and clean right out of the box, and it is a very pretty game and the press likes pretty. Out of the box, FoW was also very pretty, but it also had some serious issues, not the least of which was an even worse frame-rate! FoW also has a ton of text and speech errors that when taken singley aren't that bad but there are just so many of them, the game really appears sloppy. And lastly, FoW is not receiving the same level of support from the developer that CoH is.

1 - as far as differences, I would add LOD is so much higher in FoW, it's really quite stunning. Gameplay is also completely different between CoH and FoW.

2 - what is similar between CoH and FoW is actually a shorter list - WW2 setting and nothing more!! CoH has no direct control, FoW has direct control and in fact, direct control is the only way to play FoW!! But again, other than the WW2 setting, I find very little else similar between the two.

3 - both CoH and FoW have some very cool things, but what is "cool" is very subjective so there's no sense in listing a bunch of opinions. Perhaps even more important to this discussion is both CoH and FoW have some very annoying things about them. As a whole, CoH has fewer annoyances but I prefer FoW simply because I've learned how to deal with the frustrations and I prefer FoW gameplay to that of CoH. FoW is right on the edge of being a truly awesome game, CoH doesn't have the same potential.....IMO.

Bottom line - they are such different gameplaying experiences, I wouldn't even compare them. In fact, I find there is very little real, real-time, or strategic in CoH, but they had to call it something so they call it an RTS. If you're a "clickfest-build-collect-recruit-capture-rush" kind of player, CoH is right up your alley. If you want more strategic and tactical control, FoW is the much better choice.

quote:

Originally posted by VicemanFIN:

check this video:
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=6191353760391783097&hl=en-CA

awesome vid. is that yours?

So CoH is like C&C:Generals that u can build and make vehicles and stuff???

1. SO is it still worth it buying the game???

2. Can u make trenches or something????

Thanks for replies guys!!!

1. Depends on you, I bought the game but the replayability was low. I sometimes get urges to play it after a VERY long time but i still play FOW a whole lot more....fow is better, more tactical; COH is just a plain click-fest that shouldnt be called an RTS
2. No.

Think.. RTS with a empisis on Real Time and Stratgy... Tanks take years to build!! you never get to turn your computer off!!
You must think about every single movement! You get whole battalions under your controll on one giant map of a country so no one can make a 1/4 size defense in the coner of the map!! its so big the map is even the whole world!! lol..

I h8 CoH fanboys.. CoH is also overpriced.. for it being a mod of DoW.. and FoW being so cheap while its built from the ground.. Basicly thats why CoH is so "smooth" etc.. its built up off DoW so it has all the testing of DoW.. like DoW is its beta -.-

quote:

Originally posted by Jozor23:
Think.. RTS with a empisis on Real Time and Stratgy... Tanks take years to build!! you never get to turn your computer off!!
You must think about every single movement! You get whole battalions under your controll on one giant map of a country so no one can make a 1/4 size defense in the coner of the map!! its so big the map is even the whole world!! lol..

I h8 CoH fanboys.. CoH is also overpriced.. for it being a mod of DoW.. and FoW being so cheap while its built from the ground.. Basicly thats why CoH is so "smooth" etc.. its built up off DoW so it has all the testing of DoW.. like DoW is its beta -.-

Uh, if you're describing CoH here, then I completely disagree. As I've said numerous times before - there is very little real, real-time, strategic, or tactical about CoH....IMO. Tanks only take 3-5 minutes to build, which might be a long time when you're just sitting there, but is nothing close to real-time!! The only thing real-time about CoH is that it is NOT turn-based. It would be much more appropriate to label CoH an NTBGSRC - Non Turn-Based Graphically Stunning Repetitive Clickfest.

I dislike fanbois of any game. Fanbois are blinded yes-men who can't accept that "their" games aren't perfect!! I completely agree that CoH is over-priced, and that it has very little replay value.

Regardless, both CoH and FoW have their merits. If you're thinking about getting CoH, I would suggest you do so with an understanding that it is nothing like FoW. The gameplay experience is that different, IMO, and if you get it cuz you're looking for more FoW, you will be sorely disappointed. CoH is also not really like C&C, IMO.

I, like the other posters, prefer FoW over CoH any day

Dude i was freaking being sarcastic..
Anyway i played the beta's, it was ok and also annoying.. but thats all not too impress'd, ive personaly had fights with CoH (and WoW, but havent we all) fanboys, even my own friends betraying me.. for that game ¬.¬

In my whole wardrobe of 150+ games (last time i counted about a year or 2 ago..) i dont have CoH.. ive thought about buying it yes.. but its too pricy.. I did on the other hand buy FoW when it first came out for £29.99 and havent regret'd it..

Firefox seems to have quiet a few fanboys too from exsperience, like an army.. probaly have some posts coming back attacking this "Firefox has no fanboys" thing.. and that "where not fanboys, Firefox is realy the best browser!"
I go for Opera personaly, but thats just my personal choice, I also have Opera browser for my DS and i dont mind using IE sometimes cause i have quiet abit tab'd in Opera.

quote:

Originally posted by saif_revolucion:

quote:

Originally posted by VicemanFIN:

check this video:
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=6191353760391783097&hl=en-CA

awesome vid. is that yours?

No, its made by sMull. But it is really awesome

here's link for high resolutin version.
http://www.2404.org/smull/Faces.of.War_Dont.Stop.Me.avi

I tracked FoW on Gamespot for months in advance, then with like a week to go CoH's heavy advertising got my attention.

Then unfortunately for FoW, the reviews came out and not only were the paid reviews in big favor of CoH, the one's that really matter... the player reviews also picked CoH.

So I've been playing it since, and it is somewhat classic RTS. Build a base, an army, then take on your opponents army. I played Command and Conquer Red Alert to death years ago and also played some Warcraft (not WoW) so when I got it I was wondering why I'd spent the money.

But then I did find the cinematics (is that a word) cut in and out of the single player pretty cool. (In other words it plays out part of a movie scene like something from Saving Private Ryan, then it zooms back and you're playing the game, and so on.) But truthfully, by the time I got to the last mission or so I was starting to get bored.

So just before I put it on the junk pile, I did decide to try some online skirmish.... that was six months ago, and I must folks the game is addictive! I'm a grown man with a job, wife, and kid, and have 4 or 5 nights since last November when I've staid up til 2am on a worknight! I've played a lot of video games and have been hooked on many, but that's pretty over the top.

Does that mean the game is that great??? Well I'm not sure. I mean I was gonna throw it on the junk-pile 'cause I felt pretty done with that type of RTS (or call it a clickfest if you like.) But they did do a nice job with some new ideas:

Map control for 3 different resources and squads instead of units. They also have added elements to make it more than just 'build a big force and rush it out to fight your opponents big force.' For example, elements such as cover and flanking (MG bunkers or AT guns) make all the difference in battles. There's also the Command tree... each side picks a group of special abilities; the more XP you get as the game goes on, the more abilities. For example, Allies can choose from Infantry, Airborne, or Armor command tree. 2 of the Airborne abilities for example: you can air drop an AT gun or call in a straffing run.

All in all I think they just made a 'fun' game to match up head to head.

I also like the WWII genre, so that helps, and they have thrown in a bunch of trivia type items.. two Sherman mutations: Crocodile and Calliope. They have the axis 'Titan' (remote controlled AT device.) But it is 100% true the units and squads are designed for RTS (or RPS = Rock Paper Scissors) in that the most important thing this game tries to do is make the 2 sides balanced. Therefore, realism does have to take a back-seat to balance. I mean a Tiger will still eat up a Sherman, but they did not try to model things realisticly the way I understand FoW has.

So anyway, why am I here? Two reasons: 1, I need to move on to something else so I'll stop staying up so late (I'm sure FoW can hook me, but with CoH what happens is a I get on losing streaks and I won't go to bed until I get a win.)

And 2, the game is not 'deep.' It's darned challenging, and not easy to learn or master. Poor noobs can spend 50 - 100 games getting owned before finally learning the things that make this RTS different. I think this challenge makes it interesting.

But as for really having to use your head to figure things out? I don't think so.

RTS does have Strategy, Tactics, Micro-management, then luck in that order. The Strategy is the build order, tech progression, and command tree you choose. Tactics come in when you move in to the field and choose to flank the MG from two sides then rush in with flamethrowers or something. Micro is the click-click-clicking you need to keep your units moving around (for example you can drive your faster Sherman in circles around a Stug that has a fixed turret.) And then of course there is some luck with the random roll for hit and damage.

But other than coming up with these ideas, and then if you're good, thinking quickly about what the Rock is for the other guy's scissors, there is no depth.

I'm thinking (and hoping) FoW might give me more depth, more realism, more single player replayability (this last item I'm not sure about.) Perhaps more to think hard about rather than just fast?

Ok, this post is like 8 pages long. I've told you guys almost everything I can about CoH. Please tell me more why you love FoW so I too can get into it!

Well here you are,if you are a WW2 geek and you are one of those puking on historical inaccuracies in a game, youll find so easy to love fow, despite the lagging and a graphic engine with a heavy burden of physics effects (try running into a building...)
Well for the moment i could explain why i love fow by a process of elimination, coh for example is not WW2 i tried to play it but watching those little things running around like clones... it gave me creeps and after a while coh was on the shelf greedily waiting for the dust to come,,,
Coh online? Hmmm more like a track & field thing than anything else.....bleah rushers only interested in theyr stugs respawn rate...
oh and last but not least im not really sure but coh is not moddable is it? the only thing id grab from coh are those fascinating explosions.... maybe not enough to justify 50 bucks (price in Norway)

CoH = C&C Gens general system, with the C&C Gens angry mob meets Dawn of war, with the american World war 2 story line thrown in for extra's, they sprickle on alot of relics **** laods of cash, and thats what you get.. oh and a SHOWW2 like, more simplified than ever armour system

FoW = SHOWW2, kinda simplified, but with a nice new squad system(that can be annoying as hell at times, but other times very usefull..), a nasty budget put on it probaly because of how SHOWW2 was nut such of a big hit.

And since when is FoW laggy? even when people were complaining about terrible lag in the days of it first coming out i found it fine.. how much do you spend on your comp? £400?!?!? -.-

That income system on CoH is kinda silly..
A true real time strategy, you would get reinforcements coming off map taking there time, dig in fortifications, get airfields so your planes could stay longer.. and a big dob of Faces of War.

I played the CoH beta's.. wasent to impress'd.. if i wanna play a nice game of bashing the **** out of something with simplified variables, i think ill stick with KKND or similar.

Warcraft 3 is gr8 for its mods in a map thing and the battlenet download system but otherwise not that gr8...

But come on guys, what do you LOVE about FoW? Put in to words why this game eats up hours of your life with great delight. Is it the online multi-player? If so, the head to head competition or the collaborative effort to against the computer? Or both? Is it the realism? Or complex problem solving?

I hear only bashing of CoH. Ok, I get it. But CoH is a FUN multi-player online game with a bunch of new twists in the RTS clickfest that did very successfuly pump new life into an already overdone genre. They actually did make a game where finesse in both tactics and micro-management can pay off beyond brute force and honestly, the old rush tactic really does not work that well. In a lot of cases a visit into your opponents base can have disastorous effects for you.

They also did a really polished job on graphics, destroybable map, and multiple camera angles with some WWII trivia thrown in, but again, I do believe FoW probably has done better with those elements. Reason being, CoH is about being fun and balanced for online competitive game play. But graphics and destructable environment go only as far as lots of explosions and gun fire in a movie; what's the real hook?

Perhaps this is not the right post because I'm not looking for anyone to convince me one is better than another, I'm hoping someone will go into depth about why they love FoW.

I mainly slait CoH for all of the CoH fanboys..
Anyway i personaly love FoW, for its Armour Penetration System(no basic crappy hp system), its induvidual soldier inventory, so i can kit out my troops how i like to, the towable guns, to quickly move them, the helmets and body armour, to realisticly protect them, not like Counter Strike, The destructable enviroment, because then you can blow up part of a wall with a AT granade and rush threw to take on the enemy, the complex Fog Of War in MP, so then if i dont watch the rear of my tanks properly, i will pay with it dearly, but if i protect them properly, im fine, and i can do the same to the enemy, The Co-oP, because its fun to play with m8's against AI sometimes, to do some commando like fighting, The TDM, for the strategy in controlling an army of squads and vehicles. The list could probaly go on, But its all down to some ones personality i geuss.

But i generaly do h8 artilary, because it can become such a freaking spam and make infentry pritty useless..