Single-player missions discussion

[G.I. Jen]

I just found out about this game and it looks awsome. I am not a fan of multiplayer online games but i do like the single player missions. I enjoyed Dawn of War's single player missions but each mission was way too similar. Does anyone know how the single player missions will play out in Company of Heroes ?

[Aces_High]

Unfortunately no. Not at this point in time. All we know is that the sp campaign is supposed to be very cinematic, and it follows the exploits of 'Able Company,' starting with the Allied invasion of Normandy.

Beyond that it is just speculation.

[G.I. Jen]

what do you think single player missions will be like ? I didnt find the Dawn of War ones very creative. Any ideas ?

[TheLoneKnight]

That discussion is probably best left for another thread.

[G.I. Jen]

i cant get another thread going i dunno why

[ionfish]

Splitting this part of the discussion off.

[medes]

The Dawn of War SP missions were quite similar since its just kill kill kill. But i enjoyed it since each mission is like a total war which makes each mission worth playing. I hope this game will be like that, in a sense that each mission would take like at least a half hour to finish. And i also would like to see other theaters than just Normandy cause i think i've seen too much of it in other games. Stalingrad would be nice for a change.

[Aces_High]

Yeah it would be nice to see something else besides Normandy and the western front. Something in North Africa perhaps? There was the US operation Torch, Afrika Corps, and Desert Rats. Anyhow...

What will the missions be like? Not sure, since I don't even know what the gameplay will be like. Hopefully it will make the player use terrain and weapons cleverly. Instead of DoWs philosophy, which was just: "Enemy is too tough for you? Get bigger guns!"

For example at the start of a mission, let's say you have a handful of troops, 3 airstrikes and no 'victory locations' (or what ever strategic points are called in CoH), and you objective is to take control of a strategic point guarded by German troops garrisoned in bunkers. You can't just storm the bunkers, that would be a massacre. And with no victory locations you can't call in reinforcements, so no tanks/artillery/replacement troops. First you try ordering an airstrike on one of the bunkers. The plane's bomb hits but the bunker is still standing. Perhaps if you hit it with the other two strikes, that would level it, but that does nothing about the other bunkers. So instead of trying to destroy the bunkers, you order the other two planes to drop their bombs nearby. Ta-da! Cover! So now your troops use the cover to outflank the bunkers and flush the Germans out of their positions. Objective achieved.

Gameplay like that would be unbelievably awesome.

[DatonKallandor]

That could, for all we know, really work like that in-game.


Daton

[TBS]

Well the DoW expansion promises much more interesting single player missions...so it seems like Relic has learned from their experience with the DoW campaign. As such, its likely that CoH will also feature much more interesting missions than just your standard "build up an army and kill everything" scenario.

[medes]

yeah but if you ever played some of the older RTS games there are some very lousy, very short missions ya know. Escort this, infiltrate that, chase down that guy. sure it's different from other missions but they're so short and very frustrating. It's just something that you don't feel like playing again and again. I'd go for the kill'em all concept of DoW anyday, sure the they're all the same but the battles are intense and you don't easily get bored with that kind of thing.

[General Blaze]

Ah, but have you tried Homeworld's Singleplayer? Now THAT's what I call Singleplayer. It's Singleplayer (well, to most of us at least) knocks the socks off most RTS games's singleplayer missions. ;)

Hopefully, we'll have another singleplayer that delivers almost the same quality like Homeworld did.

[medes]

homeworld SP was some good stuff. Homeworld Cataclysm SP is unmatched. Every mission means something and the storyline was superb. I still love that game, too bad homeworld 2's storyline was like crap.

[Mr.Popo]

Ugh, Cataclysm was way too run-of-the-mill sci-fi for me. Homeworld still has me captivated, five years after buying it. I lost Cataclysm a few months after I bought it and I still don't care.

But with Company of Heroes I'm thinking it's going to be fairly character driven, but I seriously hope that it doesn't go the way of Full Spectrum Warrior and has you lose the mission if one of the main characters dies. I want to see a game where you get to care about the people involved, but they can be killed at whatever point in the game and the game still goes on, so you care about their deaths as well.

[Noir]

Ah, but have you tried Homeworld's Singleplayer? Now THAT's what I call Singleplayer. It's Singleplayer (well, to most of us at least) knocks the socks off most RTS games's singleplayer missions.


To be honest in hindsight Homeworld's SP for most part was pretty much the same as most other RTSes with the focus being mostly on "Killkillkilldefendonoradiation". It was just well executed, and had slight variations on the theme.

Which is why this is being changed in WA.

Which has the distinct possibility of making it into CoH,due to Relic's tendency to incoporate elements from all their games into their new projects.

[medes]

ok, so maybe calling cataclysm superb was an overstatement. But storyline wise, CoH is'nt going to be so suprising cause it's mostly history and if they wander off too far it would be too fiction don't you think? i mean it's not like the captian's most trusted sergeant is going to turn nazi because he was offered greater power... and then he summons a giant panzer... sounds a bit much

[TheDeadlyShoe]

You know what would be reeeally cool? Playing through a singleplayer campaign, except each side was controlled by a person. So it would be a multiplayer campaign, I guess, but I digress.

[Noir]

You know what would be reeeally cool? Playing through a singleplayer campaign, except each side was controlled by a person. So it would be a multiplayer campaign, I guess, but I digress.

Basically an organized scenario system online?

[Ammon Ra]

done in GC2.
and tbh, it [cooperative RTS play] wasn't that well recieved amoungst the players. they simply go for skirmish, maybe the ocational cooperative game. It gets booring after awhile. and considering that dow had no sp, i doubt it even more.

story=basic history with a cinimatic aspect. aslong as it's done well, is long enough, and has decent plot twists [not the simple "enemy holds village center, clear the enemy" 20 times after another]

[Noir]

Really? I don't remember that being there.

I was actually thinking about something like R:TW's historical scenarios but with each player controlling each side.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Unknown ID: yeah.

Ammon Ra: Not Co-Op. One player would control the Allies and the other player would control the Germans.