Hand to hand combat?

#1 Posted by jarowdowsky (208 posts) -

So, I'm currently enjoying (by which I mean losing nearly every game) the Beta of CoH2. As usual it's a cracking RTS with some really interesting asymmetrical design for the Russian and German forces, perhaps even more than in previous games.

But I'm curious about one thing, how much does anyone playing the game get frustrated by the lack of hand to hand combat?

Don't get me wrong, I realise this would be an astonishingly difficult thing to add in, what with the amount of assets and trying to get the AI and physics to interact correctly. But just feels like the rest of the game is so immersive right now that suddenly having units stood on top of each other shooting away can really damage that sense of engagement.

But only a little point and was curious how people felt about it, overall though, it might be the best RTS I've ever played :)

#2 Edited by MAGZine (438 posts) -

@jarowdowsky: but almost all units have some sort of a weapon (except new russian units) so H2H never really made sense.

#3 Posted by jarowdowsky (208 posts) -

@magzine: Well agree it doesn't make ideal tactical sense and that's no doubt why it isn't include but at times units are literally stood on top of each other when they collide. Watching units trying to rifle rifles at that range just kinda breaks the realism the game seems to want to create.

Admittedly I'm a bit of a history buff but the accounts in documentaries such as Adam Curtis' 'On the Desperate Edge of Now' or John Hustons' 'Let there be Light' really highlights what a significant part of World War 2 hand to hand combat was. Fighting over confusing, confined and ruined battlefields often left units fighting close in and unable to use long distance weapons.

Just think it would look great, prevent some of the more egregious 'game' moments and open up some fascinating command options for troops such as the shock units.

#4 Edited by Fredchuckdave (5552 posts) -

RTS games in a modern setting simply don't have hand to hand combat by and large; unless there's a whole race devoted to it. As much as knifing someone is a joyous experience it is far less efficient than shooting them in the face; thus in actual combat situations a hand to hand fight is rare at best.

#5 Posted by jarowdowsky (208 posts) -

Guess hand-to-hand is probably a little too strong, perhaps what I'm just thinking of is more close combat? At the moment the lack of any change between combat no matter what the range just produces some odd, odd moments

#6 Posted by Noffsnoffs (1 posts) -

It works in Dawn of War 2, but I don't see the point to have it in CoH.

#7 Posted by VanillaPlant (146 posts) -

I don't think hand to hand combat fits with CoH. I have yet to play CoH2, but from my time with CoH1, it was clear that Relic wanted to make an RTS where the combat was more grounded in reality. With that in mind, melee makes little sense. Think about it, the only time anyone honestly want to pull a knife against someone with a gun would be if it was their very last option, and even then they would probably opt to run first. Also, to my understanding, Bayonets were used more as a deterrent for an enemy charging your position than as a commonly used weapon. The last thing any attacker would want when jumping into a trench is to wind up skewered on the end of a bayonet.

#8 Posted by Seedofpower (3932 posts) -

As a person would played 1000+ hours of dawn of war 2, I'm actually pretty happy there is no hand to hand. Granted it was fun and dynamic for the game but in many ways it was busted. I think relic scrapped it for Company of heroes 2 because they couldn't get it right.
There was a lot of pathing issues and unit scripting bugs that were a problem, and I feel they didn't have enough time to get it right for the release of this game.

Online
#9 Posted by Gravytrader (4 posts) -

@jarowdowsky: If you can tolerate top down 2d (nicely detailed photos basically) check out the "Close Combat" series especially #2 "A Bridge too far"

It modelled the psychological state of soldiers, even their names, so you'd see them using grenades in close quarters without you having to tell them and they would enter "melee" status and try to knife the enemy if they were close to / on top of them.

I'll never forget the sole survivor of my bren gun team who went berserk stabbing 2 germans then was "scavenging" found one of their mp40s and assaulted an mg42 team in a 3 story house by himself :o

#10 Posted by GaspoweR (3066 posts) -

As a person would played 1000+ hours of dawn of war 2, I'm actually pretty happy there is no hand to hand. Granted it was fun and dynamic for the game but in many ways it was busted. I think relic scrapped it for Company of heroes 2 because they couldn't get it right.

There was a lot of pathing issues and unit scripting bugs that were a problem, and I feel they didn't have enough time to get it right for the release of this game.

It was great seeing the melee combat in a DOW2 considering that the universe clearly has units that do specialize in using that, particularly when the Force Commander is wielding a Thunder Hammer.

#11 Posted by Seedofpower (3932 posts) -

@gaspower said:

@seedofpower said:

As a person would played 1000+ hours of dawn of war 2, I'm actually pretty happy there is no hand to hand. Granted it was fun and dynamic for the game but in many ways it was busted. I think relic scrapped it for Company of heroes 2 because they couldn't get it right.

There was a lot of pathing issues and unit scripting bugs that were a problem, and I feel they didn't have enough time to get it right for the release of this game.

It was great seeing the melee combat in a DOW2 considering that the universe clearly has units that do specialize in using that, particularly when the Force Commander is wielding a Thunder Hammer.

Yes it was and it fit the universe very well, but it was still pretty broken in a few spots. It took too long for units to registrar whether or not they were in melee combat or not and some attacks took too long to wind-up and end up missing.

Online
#12 Edited by Mikemcn (6989 posts) -

Company of Heroes isn't about realism. All units have health bars, if you melee'd two units would just be beating eachother to death for five minutes until one fell over.

#13 Posted by Funkydupe (3321 posts) -

I have mixed feelings about this game after 20 hours in closed beta. It is a let down mainly because it doesn't feel like a step forward in any area; it does the exact same gameplay as the previous games just fine, and that's quite enjoyable, but in terms of taking CoH forward, it kind of fails to be honest.

#14 Edited by buckybit (1455 posts) -

@funkydupe said:

I have mixed feelings about this game after 20 hours in closed beta. It is a let down mainly because it doesn't feel like a step forward in any area; it does the exact same gameplay as the previous games just fine, and that's quite enjoyable, but in terms of taking CoH forward, it kind of fails to be honest.

Is it your English or mine, that does not grok "it kind of fails to be honest"? So the game (or developers?) are "dishonest"?? Are not honest ... in relation to what, exactly?

I am not attacking you, I just want to find out, what you mean by that word. It sounds strange.

I don't know you, but 20 hours of playing an RTS is not nearly enough for someone like myself to judge a game and its nuances. But I am probably not as good as you are, playing these kind of games. I do hear a lot of criticism in forums (not Giantbomb. On Giantbomb, every strategy game fan is a delicate rare flower) about the new CoH2 - but mostly framerate & network lag.

What would - in your opinion - take CoH forward, if you don't mind sharing? Again - I am just curious to hear.

@all

Making strategy games of this kind is hard? Wouldn't everyone agree?

You are basically making six different games in one?

You have the multiplayer, the skrimish and the single player campaign - and on top, you have to balance each for at least two types of players: the top-level players and the "casual"/beginners = 3x2.

#15 Edited by Funkydupe (3321 posts) -

@buckybit: I apologize. I try to write English the way I hear it on TV. Please forgive me.

The game felt like CoH the original game. It didn't feel improved nor did I feel there was much innovation to point out beyond tracks in the snow and blizzard weather conditions that restrict players for the duration. That was my impression from 20 hours of gameplay. You can dispute this. You can dispute my English. That was my opinion. I shared it. You can ignore it if you want to but it is there for all to read, should they feel like it.

#16 Edited by Funkydupe (3321 posts) -

@all

Feel free to send me a PM if you have a problem with me or my posts and I'll Skype you; this is important so we should discuss it.

#17 Posted by MAGZine (438 posts) -

I feel like Company of Heroes 2 was supposed to be just like the original game, just more and on a different front of war.

And in that regard, CoH2 is a complete success. It's a very true sequel insofar that it's exactly like CoH1, just with all new units and some new/overhauled mechanics.

Is there any reason you were expecting a radically different or "improved" game in a sequel? It's hard to improve perfection ;)

#18 Posted by Funkydupe (3321 posts) -

@magzine: It is a good point :) I played CoH a lot and this is certainly more CoH; but I sort of am weighed by expecting something more added to the mix when a sequel arrives for an established game. If I only wanted CoH; I'd still play CoH. The graphics is still really good even today, and the main difference in graphics is that in CoH 2 you can zoom out a bit more. I never have time to study the details of units and such during matches anyway.

#19 Posted by jarowdowsky (208 posts) -

@gravytrader: Man, I remember loving that back in the day - may check out Close Combat again.

And just if it was unclear - I'm loving CoH2 - looking forward to unlocking those Soviet Terror Tactics in the next day or so.

Just felt the games only time it looks clunky or unrealistic is in those moments where troops are just right on top of each other but I can happily look past it for the overall benefits of the way they choose to go with the game here. But from a realism front, first hand accounts of a lot of tactical encounters show that close arm combat was far more common than people may realise.

But yeah - if it'd break the game, I'm all for leaving it out. Maybe just some AI awareness on an animation front would work enough for me, but it really is a small point on a damn fine game.

#20 Edited by jarowdowsky (208 posts) -

Oh and a bit off topic - anyone else really excited for the Theater of War mode, I'm expecting some really interesting stuff in there outside of the traditional skirmish. Anyone know if there's been similar modes before (I'm pretty much skipping from CoH1 to 2 without playing much of the expansions, etc)

#21 Posted by Giantstalker (1660 posts) -

Oh and a bit off topic - anyone else really excited for the Theater of War mode, I'm expecting some really interesting stuff in there outside of the traditional skirmish. Anyone know if there's been similar modes before (I'm pretty much skipping from CoH1 to 2 without playing much of the expansions, etc)

They tried it in Tales of Valor (the 2nd expansion) with some custom maps, I think they were called Operations or something, but they were a bit lackluster. Fun to play one or two times but not really much to see after that.

I hope they took the lessons learned from that first attempt and really built something compelling, since in theory, I'm excited about Theater of War mode as well.

#22 Posted by MightyMayorMike (423 posts) -

Guess hand-to-hand is probably a little too strong, perhaps what I'm just thinking of is more close combat? At the moment the lack of any change between combat no matter what the range just produces some odd, odd moments

I've had a few moments where the lack of hand-to-hand definitely seemed jarring, like when an enemy squad runs straight through mine or stands shoulder-to-shoulder with my squad behind some cover. Other than that, I don't necessarily miss it, though maybe that's because WW2 combatants lack chainswords.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.