Why only two countries?

[dabomb123]

Hi,
Why does this game only have two countries to choose from? From all the trailers and movies I've seen, the setting of all the battles takes place in a town...will that be the only battleground? That's the reason, which is a little dissapointing, they decided to include only two countries, since having the Russians, Japanses or Italians would force them to make the appropriate setting for each country and where they fought. Still, I hope other nationalities would be included in an expansion pack, since I would very much like to play on an open field for example with Russians vs. Germans, or on small islands with Japanses vs. Americans, or Italians vs. British on a desert landscape...

Thoughts, comments?

[scmarine]

The trailers and screenshots we have seen are pre-alpha. we have not gotten very much info on the game yet either, but what do know is it takes place in Normandy and we command Able Company if im not mistaken.

As for having only 2 countries it may be for balance reasions, or maybe becuse all the armies would be so alike.

I am sure there will be more than the town we seen in the trialers. it will probably stick to France i dont know how far the game goes. I too would not mind seeing something other than the villages and hedgerows of France.

we will just have to wait for more information. :(

[TBS]

The game will follow the Normandy campaign ...I doubt that the maps will be limited to one small French town though :p

[Klaus88]

Also the armies during WWII were very similar really. True they did have different weapons and tactics and also their effectiveness on the battle field was very different but they were surprisingly similar when you take a close look at the different armies.

[TheLoneKnight]

There are only two countries because Relic hates you. :(


..seriously though: The entire campaign follows the exploits of an American company as they make their way across Europe, screaming "PWN3D!!" at the German Soldiers they meet.

Russia, Japan, even Italy would have no presence in the game because they don't fit with the campaign.

[dabomb123]

Well obviously there aren't going to be other nationalities to play as when the game is based on the Normandy campaign...

My question is, why only the Normandy campaign and not other theatres of war.

[DatonKallandor]

Because its well known and easily recognisable by their target audience.


Daton

[Cash_Fish]

A two side rts is a bit small imo and is my current biggest problem with CoH. It is getting a bit late for a surprise new country though. :(

[ÜberJumper]

I'll wager because of the limitations imposed by the complexity of the content.

With the destructibility of the environment, and the complexity of the units, it takes a fair amount of extra work to prepare the art assets for the game. They simply won't have the time or money to put all those additional assets into the game in a reasonable time frame.

However, once the engine is technologically proven, it should be relatively easy to add in new assets into the game. Follow on products and mods should be common.

[cyborgZero]

HAHAHA only two sides to the game? Oh well, too much for diversity, this will be so lame. Choose, german or american, and they tried to keep it confidential by saying Axis and Allies, thinking that there would be both sides.

If you say all the armies are the same, well it will be like Russia will have numbers to throw, but weak, so they will compare to how the orks are "supposed" to be in WA hehe but they are out nmbered. I wouldnt say much about France, lol. Japan, fighting to the death like the imperial guards, they are are fearless, so very high moral. Russians shoudl break in small numbers as the cowards were shot.

[Maximus Decimus]

Note that we are making the assumption that there are only two races in the game, no official word yet on this.

[Denwad]

the assumption that Russia had a mass of inexperienced soldiers by 1943 is incorrect.

by 1944 the Red Army had shattered the Army Group Center in Operation Bagration and was advancing very quickly towards Germany

Red Army troop quality by 1944 was on par or above quality of the average soldier in the German army

Red Army troop formations were also much better supplied and equipped ( quantity has a quality of its own ) and Russian tanks and aircraft also rapidly improved.

[Triceron]

I think they're trying it to centralize the campaign on a smaller aspect of WW2. The game revolves around an American company rather than the big-scale picture of Allies vs Axis, the focus being more like a Band of Brothers scenario where you're supposed to treat your units more like characters and less like expendable troops. It's sounding more micro intense and less macroing like a full-scale war.

I assume multiplayer would open up more options to different countries though, although question is how muchdifference each country has from one another.

[Shiny]

How come its always America :( They didn't even join the war 'til halfway through lol. What about Britain? We were there from the start, but got rushed by T2 Nazi panzer spam. So we had to turtle then tech to airplanes to win air superiority. The USA just turtled for the whole first part of the war :( Then showed up with a mssive T3 army at the end.

I would like to see other countries in MP mode, but only two in a campagin seems fine.

[Cash_Fish]

Yeah I would really like Russia, Japan, and England. Hopefully there will be antoher country added since I am very skeptical of buying an rts with only 2 sides.

@Shiny: Too bad France dropped. :p

[ÜberJumper]

Guys, games can be more like movies, and Relic has been known to feature games with a pretty cinematic feel.

You can have games be similar to movies like Saving Private Ryan, or Enemy at the Gates. Each of those movies focused on a single campaign, following the exploits of one unit or even one individual.

The've chosen the setting for this story to be the Normandy Campaign. This will allow them to pump tons of detail into the game for that locale rather than spreading their budget around to multiple locales. They've already indicated that we will see other nationalities (http://www.relicnews.com/articles/interviews/interview-jj/) *, aside from the US and Germany, in the Single Player campaign.

As for fully fleshed out races? Probably not, it'll be more like the Imperial Guard in the orginal dawn of war.

Follow on games could allow for more variety. Perhaps an Italian or North African campaign, or a campaign on the eastern front.

* whoever updated my interview onto Relicnews (Moe?) didn't correctly indicate that John Johnson's the producer on CoH not a designer.

[cyborgZero]

Do we get to play an Axis campaign? I mean the war is long over and it won't hurt playing as the Germans in a campagn breaking through that French line (sorry forget its name, thats what happens when u live in north america for a while, u become pop-cultured and forget all your history lessons). I want to play as Axis and learn more about how they began it all...nothign wrong with that

[Mr.Popo]

The Germans broke through the Ardennes, and if you can't retain information then don't half ass it and blame where you live, at least take some responsibility ffs.

And no, the Russian army wasn't poorly trained or equipped - the war of attrition that Hitler chose to fight ended up costing him all of the most experienced German veterans, eventually costing him the war.

While I think it's a smart move to concentrate on a few characters (I only hope that they will be able to die and you can still move forward - nothing like an unscripted battle where one of your favorite characters ends up getting mowed down by an MG42. That's the biggest reason I fell in love with the COD series,) but Normandy has been done so many times that I think it's about time to start focusing on Italy, controlling paratroopers at Monte Cassino, or squaring off with Rommel in the Africa campaign. So much of the battles and people in WWII end up being buried by Normandy and the Eastern Front, I think it's about time to start paying some homage to the vets that fought in these campaigns before they're gone.

[Scribble]

Personally I find it extremely annoying that the sole focus of almost all ww2 campains is the Normandy Invasion which was when alls said and done a tiny part of the war.

[Starfisher]

Markets rule.

[ÜberJumper]

Know thy audience eh Fisher?

What would be really neat actually, would be if they did a Korean War game. Lots of fascinating stories there, and they could re-use a lot of the same assets.

[Cash_Fish]

That would actually make a pretty good game ÜberJumper. A lot of the units would be more or less the same with a few tweaks. Not to mention how much fun giant MiG strikes would be. :nod:

[Alliance]

do you REALLY care if your trooper shouts "halt" "stop" or "Oi, hit the breaks"?

[Holy Chaos Ryu]

There better be more than 2 races, so we can play as British troops! I know America is a bigger country, and therefore they want to appeal to them more for profit reasons, but goddamit, America always gets the limelight, even though they didn't show up until last minute!

If there was to only be 2 races, it should be England and Germany.

[scmarine]

There are two definate playable factions in this game, as previously stated by Uberjumper others (British maybe French) are supposed to be seen in the single player campaign. I do not think there is enough difference between the equipment and fighting style of the Allied nations to warrent all of their inclusion. I however would not mind if the all were included.

[Aces_High]

"but goddamit, America always gets the limelight, even though they didn't show up until last minute!"

How is 1941 the last minute?

If there are no other playable nations, then at the least Britian and Canada will very likely make a cameo. After all the US only landed on two of the five beaches on D-Day.

You can also be assured that if the game is a success like DoW, then an expanision is on the way. Can anyone say "Company of Heroes: Winter Assault?"

[General Nuke Em]

Why does everything have to do with the winter? Why not "Company of Heroes: Summer Defense 1942" or something (nevermind the shitty title)?

[Riess]

Company of Heroes: Beach Party

[DatonKallandor]

Company of Heroes vs Ze Evil Krauts


Daton

[Cash_Fish]

I can see it now in Company of Heroes: Winter Assualt, "OMG!!!!! Russian commie bayonet rush is imba!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111"

[Mr.Popo]

"Protect yourself? Against what? Ze Germans?"

[Slash]

they should have added canadians too....their 'under attack' speech would like "THOSE NAZI"S ARE FIRING AT US EH?!" and the when the nazi's spot the canadians they would be like "Shietze!! ZZ CANUCKS ARE HERE!"

but serously, adding 2 sides isnt right, since canadians and brits helped out in the normandy campain, plus they are heroes too! without them ww2 wouldnt have been won.... It would be really cool to have them.

[Tacit]

Keep in mind that because you only hear of Allies and Axis in Company of Heroes, doesn't mean we don't recognize that many countries were involved with the war. :)

The game is meant to be entertainment, not a history lesson. Not that history can't be fun...of course.

(Yeah right).

[Mr.Popo]

Tacit you tactful Relic gentleman, of course history can be fun.

It's just that the historians might get a little upset.

[Bonnet]

How about we simply call them the allies, since lets face it, they where all under one general...

[Tacit]

It's just that the historians might get a little upset.

That's fair. But our goal is to entertain, rather than to educate.

[Moe]

I think you guys mentioned that during E3 as well, in regards to authenticity vs historical accuracy.

[Belgarion]

Just have a flag floating over the squads in action and dont show the costumes in too much detail.
HHMM Seeing the gameplay demo I doubt thats an option though

[Bobacanoosh]

Perhaps its worth noting that Homeworld, which many people including myself think is the best or one of the best rts games out there and which allowed Relic to go on to create other projects like DOW and COH had only two playable sides, and these were virtually the same. It made up for it with a storyline that actually made you give a damn about the units you controlled, and I think that Relic is trying to go back to that feel in this next game rather than throwing in every single side they can possibly get their hands on.

[Mr.Popo]

And honestly, that's probably the best way to go. Variety doesn't equal fun. And since they're throwing all pretenses out the window and just saying they want to entertain rather than pay homage or teach/preach, throwing in all of the sides that fought isn't even remotely necessary for a great gameplay experience.

[SchizoBadger]

Maybe it will be kind of like Red Alert where there are 2 main forces and a bunch of Nations that have a special unit(s) and abilities. Like Russia would have quicker production and good all around tanks, but a lackluster air force and Italy would have... pasta aaand meatballs... :bandit: :jest:

[Aces_High]

Indeed it is harder to balance a RTS if it has more armies. For example, Command and Conquer Generals' balance pretty much went to hell when they introduced the expansion. It more or less created 12 different armies with their own strengths and weaknesses. Not that Generals' balance was very good in the first place, but it was no worse than some of DoWs' more busted iterations.

I won't careif there are only two sides, I suppose, so long as the game is fun.

[Ax3]

Well obviously there aren't going to be other nationalities to play as when the game is based on the Normandy campaign...


Am I missing something? The English, Australians, New Zealanders, Canadians - I am sure they were in the battle.

But I would say for easy of game making they have kept it to the US/German Combo.

[Innociv]

Frankly it sounds fine to me. 2 is enough and it'll be much easier to balance.
Hopefully they'll be fairly different too.

but DoW2 if it comes better have more than 2 :P

[n0z3k1ll3r]

TBH, all the Commonwealth armies are more or less identical around this point, so you'd basically have US, Commonwealth, and Germany. And the Commonwealth and US would still be really similar. Not really worth it.

[Ammon Ra]

That's fair. But our goal is to entertain, rather than to educate.
entertainment and education are not mutually exclusive. If you're going to build the game up from a historical event you might as well try to be historically accurate, if not you might just as well invent some alternative reality storyline where you have the last word. History is about telling a story, not about numbers, years, and random facts. >_<

[Moe]

As far as I understand they are doing just that. They are creating a fictional storyline within the framework of our reality.

[black_ranger]

I dont care if there is only two sides as long as there's a skirmish mode with A.i players
that's the one thing i dont know about the game keeping me from buying it.

[TBS]

There will be multiplayer so I think its safe to assume that there will also be skirmish vs AI (and there will be Thudmeizer to work his magic and make the AI much smarter...).

[Twitch2396]

I think there is a few reasons why 1. there are only two armies in the game, and 2. america usually gets the "lime light" in Normandy.

First, though there were a few different countries landing in Normandy(though I'm not so sure about Australians), the british were bankrupt and the Canadians, New Zealanders, and Free French, played a small role. Also the Italians army wont be there because 1. the game is based in Nomandy, and 2. their army sucked. There tanks were worse than the Americans(which by that time in the war, were for the most part under armored and out gunned, except for a few Sherman variants and the Persing)(I think that how you spell it) Plus judging by the quality of the graphics in the screen shots, and the features that are supposed to be included in the game, this game will be huge space wise, and adding more armies would mean adding more maps, units, etc.

Secondly, the reason why America gets the "lime light" in Normandy is because they did the bulk of the fighting, such as on omaha and the surrounding towns. I am not trying to down play the Britsh role, they were very important to victory, but comparativly speaking, they did not encounter the amount of heavy fighting the Americans did. Plus Monty botched Market Garden.(though that was after Normandy)

[ÜberJumper]

Canadians played a small role at Normandy?

The US landed on two beaches, the British two beaches, and the Canadians had a beach all to themselves.

The Canadians had the second toughest (of the 5) beaches to assault, and had the second highest casualty rate of the first initial waves. They were also the only force to meet their D-day objectives.

The americans had the toughest go on Omaha beach, with 2400 casualties, but the easiest go on Utah, with only 179.
Read more (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Normandy).

[Twitch2396]

Canadians played a small role at Normandy?

The US landed on two beaches, the British two beaches, and the Canadians had a beach all to themselves.

The Canadians had the second toughest (of the 5) beaches to assault, and had the second highest casualty rate of the first initial waves. They were also the only force to meet their D-day objectives.

The americans had the toughest go on Omaha beach, with 2400 casualties, but the easiest go on Utah, with only 179.
Read more (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Normandy).
The canadians were not the only army to to land on that beach, the Free French and New Zealanders accompanied them.

[matb2]

I think there is a few reasons why 1. there are only two armies in the game, and 2. america usually gets the "lime light" in Normandy.

First, though there were a few different countries landing in Normandy(though I'm not so sure about Australians), the british were bankrupt and the Canadians, New Zealanders, and Free French, played a small role. Also the Italians army wont be there because 1. the game is based in Nomandy, and 2. their army sucked. There tanks were worse than the Americans(which by that time in the war, were for the most part under armored and out gunned, except for a few Sherman variants and the Persing)(I think that how you spell it) Plus judging by the quality of the graphics in the screen shots, and the features that are supposed to be included in the game, this game will be huge space wise, and adding more armies would mean adding more maps, units, etc.

Secondly, the reason why America gets the "lime light" in Normandy is because they did the bulk of the fighting, such as on omaha and the surrounding towns. I am not trying to down play the Britsh role, they were very important to victory, but comparativly speaking, they did not encounter the amount of heavy fighting the Americans did. Plus Monty botched Market Garden.(though that was after Normandy)
That's offensive. You must be one of those all American people who think American did everything in the war. If it wasn't for the British and the Canadians there would have been no Normandy beach landing in the first place. So pick your word carefully and understand things before you go commenting on them.

[Ax3]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Twitch2396
I think there is a few reasons why 1. there are only two armies in the game, and 2. america usually gets the "lime light" in Normandy.

First, though there were a few different countries landing in Normandy(though I'm not so sure about Australians), the british were bankrupt and the Canadians, New Zealanders, and Free French, played a small role. Also the Italians army wont be there because 1. the game is based in Nomandy, and 2. their army sucked. There tanks were worse than the Americans(which by that time in the war, were for the most part under armored and out gunned, except for a few Sherman variants and the Persing)(I think that how you spell it) Plus judging by the quality of the graphics in the screen shots, and the features that are supposed to be included in the game, this game will be huge space wise, and adding more armies would mean adding more maps, units, etc.

Secondly, the reason why America gets the "lime light" in Normandy is because they did the bulk of the fighting, such as on omaha and the surrounding towns. I am not trying to down play the Britsh role, they were very important to victory, but comparativly speaking, they did not encounter the amount of heavy fighting the Americans did. Plus Monty botched Market Garden.(though that was after Normandy)


That's offensive. You must be one of those all American people who think American did everything in the war. If it wasn't for the British and the Canadians there would have been no Normandy beach landing in the first place. So pick your word carefully and understand things before you go commenting on them.

And Australians and New Zealanders, AND the war had been going for 2 and a bit years before USA got involved.

[Akranadas]

Britsh Commonwealth Forces Dwafed everything,

Australians
Britians
New Zealanders
Canadians
Inidains
Pakistains
Hong Kong
ect ect

They were fight the war before USA entered, it was kinda a obligation to the Queen that we had, :D

but overall it wasn't who fought the hardest or who sacrificed the most, in the end it was just war, and really in war there really isn't countries or sides, because when you remove those uniforms, your just a human like the rest of us.

[Agdune]

*insert rant about russian war effort compared to western allied efforts here, in additional responce to comments by Twitch2396*

[Twitch2396]

That's offensive. You must be one of those all American people who think American did everything in the war. If it wasn't for the British and the Canadians there would have been no Normandy beach landing in the first place. So pick your word carefully and understand things before you go commenting on them.
hmm... it seems to say in my post that british played an important role in the victory. Now that either means you skipped over that or u are blind.

When i said that they did not encounter as much heavy fighting, i meant in normandy, which is a small area, i am aware of the fact that the british played a a large role in the Battle of the Bulge and many other operations.

Also i never said anything about the russians

[Agdune]

No, you didn't mention Russia, but it's always best to bear in mind the fact that they really did do the most out of any of us when you're going to talk about who did the most where. Granted, I did drag them in unnecessarily, but there you go. I got the feeling that you were revving up for a 'yay America", but it seems that wasn't warranted. I've probably gotten rather touchy about it after all that Medal of honour that I've had rammed down my throat at my girlfriend’s house...

Gah that game makes me twitch.

(Edit: Heh. Unintentional pun.)

[Klaus88]

And what would have happened if America hadn't joined the war??? Riddle me that.

[Lestaki]

Russia would have taken over europe?

[the_sidewinder]

And what would have happened if America hadn't joined the war??? Riddle me that.

That is rhetoric nonsense. Going around saying "We're better than you are," or "We saved your asses in WW2" is all BS. Yes the US helped, and without them, the war may have been lost. But without the commonwealth, the war would certainly have been lost. And it's not like the Nazis didn't threaten the US as well, it was only in their best interest to participate. IIRC, while the US had nukes first, the german camp was not far behind in reserch, and already had ranged missile attacks that would really have hurt, combined with their u-boats.

[IcecreamLtDan]

Folks, this is not a discussion about who did what during WWII but why there are only two countries represented in this game. For the most part I did not mind a little civilized discussion about this as it encouraged people to try to learn a little more about WWII. However, this has now gone way off track. If you guys want to argue over who did what, take it off of this board.