f13.net

Certainly you all have heard of that game Company of Heroes? 

Sure, it's got one of the worst names for a game--a generic one, but it is one of the best RTS's (strategy? tactics? whats the difference) I've played and I've played them all.

From the creators of Warhammer 40k comes a game better than Warhammer.  It's the sleekest, most detailed, tactical and visceral RTS of all time.  It has the atmosphere of Call of Duty, but fortunately manages to be fairly innovative.  It deemphasizes the economy in a way that people have been longing for since Starcraft.  It's also been getting great reviews from every place that gives reviews and has one posted.  But since you all hate places like ign and gamespy, why take their word for it?  Check it out; it deserves at least a look--relic needs more attention dammit!  even if PC gaming is dying  :heartbreak:

I am more tired of WWII than I am of elves and dwarves.  Sorry.

And moles. I'm tired of the mole digging up my lawn.

Well.....I'm tired of WW2 as well, but there aren't as many WW2 RTS's as FPS's at least (maybe I'm wrong there). And Dawn of War wasn't bad either.

It could be fun, but I'm a bit strapped at the moment. Maybe next month.

Can the game be paused while you issue orders?

I hate RTS, worst genre ever...unless you can make it pseudo-TBS by pause-and-order (like Freedom Force, for instance).

Well, like the man said, they take out a lot of the stress you'd get from economy related actions. Like DoW, you'll concentrate on combat. I highly doubt there's "pause", but it's an RTS with less micro. You'd probably get more enjoyment out of it than other RTS's.

[edit] Did you like Total War at least?

I only played Rome for a few minutes on a buddy's machine. Maybe you couldn't pause and issue orders.

I'm serious, though. If I can't pause and give orders, I don't play :)

I do wish Silent Storm supported widescreen, that game seemed cool, but clunky and not widescreen friendly :(

I'm kind of tired of RTS in general and WW2 as well. That said it has been getting uniformly rave reviews. My interest in the entire genre is just dead though.

You couldn't pause in Total War, correct. But it did seperate non combat management from the rest of the game.

Just wondering if you still liked it, since this game probably isn't much different than that or Dawn of War. Still an RTS, but not an RTS like C&C or SC. Seperating the battle part of a game from all of the other stuff can allow more room for tactical thinking for people who otherwise wouldn't like RTS's.

If they had "pause" then they wouldn't be real time at all though. And if it's the idea of real time itself that you're dead set against, it's definitely not the game for you.

RTS is a Satanic plot to keep all the Ritalin-starved click-frenzied fucktards occupied while he and Saddam take over the world.

Yes, you can. And the non-combat bits were all turn-based.

You can indeed pause and give orders--and many people seem to need it against the viscious AI.  Fortunately you can play LAN games with only one copy of the game, and you don't even need the disk in to play.  Makes it easy to play with your less cheating less responsive friends..

Plus there's nothing like starforce on it

Crap. Not that I don't believe you guys, but I don't remember seeing a pause feature, let alone remember a time that I ever used it.

I feel stupid now (though I do know that the non combat parts were turn based...can't mistake that).

I'm with sky.

And although you could pause in R:TW.. the cheating AI killed the game for me in less than 3 hours.  Considering the somewhat nice Turn-based segments I was dissapointed.

I want a legitimate, quality MOM sequal, though, so I'm used to living with eternal dissapointment.

R:TW was playable without playing the combats as well. I played it as a TBS, never once seeing a battlefield.

How abou a link so I can check it out?  Never get tired of dubbya dubbya two.  :-D

Yeah I'm lazy, drunk too so neener.

http://www.google.com

Single player demo off of filefront:

http://files.filefront.com/Company+of+Heroes+Single+Player+Demo/;5473388;;/fileinfo.html (http://files.filefront.com/Company+of+Heroes+Single+Player+Demo/;5473388;;/fileinfo.html)

This games actually been quite abit of fun.Not alot of micro at all.It still suffers from some of the standard problems of the genre,like if you place some heavy weapons in a bad spot they will pummel the hell out of your own fortifications,or clicking a move order if you don't watch your troops they will take the shortest route even if that route is through a heavily fortified enemy encampment.

I'm not to sure yet on the AI in this tho,sometimes they fall into old patterns where I've found a main supply route and have set up machine gun/AT crossfire points and they turn after turn try to run it and get slaughtered,then other times they use pretty good tactics like swinging in behind me through a small gap in a hedgerow line i had missed and coming in behind my fortifications to overrun the position.

Your troops AI I have found much better then in most RTS,when your troops come under fire they either try to find some form of near-by cover or drop prone,except rangers,for some reason these suicidal troops rush head long into what evers attacking them.

Snipers ,as in most games with them, are way way over powered.The biggest problem with them is the AI doesn't seem to know how to deal with them.I can run in with a sniper take out an enemy AT or mortar team and they just sit there and die.They do usually send in a squad to see what's happening but unless I've misjudged and gotten too close they just sit there and get slaughtered along with the crew at most they dive around trying to find cover.

If you like RTS and aren't sick to death of WW2 it's worth the price of a copy.

My favourite WW2 game is still the indie Combat Mission: Beyond Overlord. It looked dated even when it was released in 2000, but the combination of strategy and raw action (get down there in the foxholes while your men are being shelled) was genius.

Info: http://www.battlefront.com/products/cmbo/cmbo.html

Demo: http://www.battlefront.com/products/cmbo/demo.html

No, incorrect.  Trust me, I've got a campaign I've been playing for a week now, and that's the only way I give orders.  Honestly, because if I couldn't, I wouldn't even give the game a minute's thought.  I'm with Sky, RTS's were fun in the era of Dune 2000 and Warcraft I, since then it's been more of the same horseshit.

ETA:  Dammit, must read whole thread before replying.  Anyhow, I'm looking forward to Medieval 2 like you wouldn't believe.

Yeah, but then it seemed to suffer from the same problems as most games that let you skip combat from MOO1 foreward to today. 

1) You need a ridiculous amount of troops to form an overwhelming force when you start that spreadsheet combat.
2) Even if you outnumber the troops 4:1 you'll suffer a stupid number of losses
3) Battles you could win tactically on your own you will lose with a complete loss of units
4) Inferior units on the tech tree never seem to be able to win against superior units unless they are that overwhelming force.

So really, it's always been my experience that you play out combats or just accept that you need to put way, way more resources  into creating troops than I'm used to doing. 

To top it off, I just don't see the purpose in only playing the game at the strategic map level.  The whole point is the commanding of armies; y'know deploying artillery, breaking up formations with cavalry, flanking movements, etc.  If all you did was stick with the world map you're basically just playing a dramatically inferior version of Civilization.

Besides which, when you've finally hit upon the perfect army of 6 legionary cohorts, 4 archers, 4 heavy cavalry, and 6 catapults (I believe in artillery   :-D ) you really want to watch that well oiled machine in action.