Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Will probably skip till the Pacific Front gets a game.

I think the problem is that THQ has so little money they can't actually push these products into production. Which of course is bad.

 Compel wrote:
Yeah, we've been talking pounds. And even the £39.99 price tag is lower than when I first saw it on amazon at £49.99.

Amazon's initial price was based off of Amazon making gak up.

Apparently the THQ share price has halved since they released their Q2 financial report. Hopefully they will still be around to actually publish COH2.

Palindrome wrote:
Apparently the THQ share price has halved since they released their Q2 financial report. Hopefully they will still be around to actually publish COH2.

I thought THQ was not on the stock market anymore.

As for Company of heroes 2 - So looking forward to it! If it gets made.

https://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NASDAQ:THQI

Their share price has picked up a little but it has still been decimated.

Palindrome wrote:
https://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NASDAQ:THQI

Their share price has picked up a little but it has still been decimated.

I really love THQ...

I would really hate to see them go.

The only thing that really bugs me about CoH2 is the same thing as the first game, to few sides to play with. Since it is supposed to be the eastern front i was expecting to at least see Finland,Hungary,Romania,Bulgaria and Italy in the game as well since even though these nations didn't play a major role in that conflict they still played some small parts. Like how the entire northen front of the Axis in Stalingrad was made up of Romanians or Hungarians and not Germans, or lets not forget the Russo-Finnish war. But oh well that's just me.

 SneakyMek wrote:
The only thing that really bugs me about CoH2 is the same thing as the first game, to few sides to play with. Since it is supposed to be the eastern front i was expecting to at least see Finland,Hungary,Romania,Bulgaria and Italy in the game as well since even though these nations didn't play a major role in that conflict they still played some small parts. Like how the entire northen front of the Axis in Stalingrad was made up of Romanians or Hungarians and not Germans, or lets not forget the Russo-Finnish war. But oh well that's just me.

You were expecting? I was literally expecting ONLY Soviets and Germans. lol. I mean Finland and Bulgaria, though they contributed, did not do enough to make an entire faction out of them. Italy is the only one I could see getting a faction out of them but that belongs in a greater war, like a more Europeon focus one.

Maybe the expansion would see Italy and the US (story line being the Italian front obviously) but if there is an expansion it will probably be Germany.

 Galdos wrote:

I mean Finland and Bulgaria, though they contributed, did not do enough to make an entire faction out of them.

You may want to brush up on your WWII history. Ok Bulgaria didn't do much but Finland certainly did, as did Hungary and Romania. The minor axis, and later allied, countries are woefully under represented in computer games in general.

Personally I would like to see a Tali-Ihantala campaign, a massive battle (bigger than El Alamein) between the Finns and the Soviets which essentially secured Finlands post war sovereignty.

Compared to who? Compared to the big five of the war, no one really did that much. People usually just think of Finland, Hungary, and Romania as having not done anything, which isn't true, but its kind of off in the land of whimsy to consider them as being important to combat operations as the US, UK, Germany, USSR, Japan etc. Hell I don't think most people even know the Continuation War happened at all, but lets not elevate such events vastly beyond their station (El Alamein included cause being bigger than either El Alamein or the North African campaign isn't much of a feat in WWII).

 LordofHats wrote:
its kind of off in the land of whimsy to consider them as being important to combat operations as the US, UK, Germany, USSR, Japan etc. Hell I don't think most people even know the Continuation War happened at all, but lets not elevate such events vastly beyond their station (El Alamein included cause being bigger than either El Alamein or the North African campaign isn't much of a feat in WWII).

I am well aware of that, nor was I suggesting that the minor axis or allied powers made a vital contribution to the wars conclusion. Dismissing them out of hand however is deeply wrong, nearly everyone would have heard about El Alamein, hardly anyone outside of Finalnd would have heard about Tali-inhantala.

WWII computer games have shown extreme relectuantce to leave Normandy, it would be nice to get a bit more variation. Admittedly CoH2 is actually focused on the Soviets which makes a change but still.

Palindrome wrote:

 Galdos wrote:

I mean Finland and Bulgaria, though they contributed, did not do enough to make an entire faction out of them.

You may want to brush up on your WWII history. Ok Bulgaria didn't do much but Finland certainly did, as did Hungary and Romania. The minor axis, and later allied, countries are woefully under represented in computer games in general.

Personally I would like to see a Tali-Ihantala campaign, a massive battle (bigger than El Alamein) between the Finns and the Soviets which essentially secured Finlands post war sovereignty.

Its all relative. Ya Finland did SO MUCH IN THE WAR when compared to say America, Germany, and the Soviets.

Finland did a lot when you are comparing them to say Brazil which contributed like a single division in the entire war but when we are talking like 10 million soldiers fighting for the Soviets and Germans, Finland looks like a joke.

Yes I know all about the Winter War, how Romania started on the German side and as the Russians approached the capital they over threw the government and joined the Russians or how Bulguria refused to declare war on Russia for nearly a year after Germany declared war because they actually liked Russia. Yes these minor axis power are worth learning about because they DID do stuff and at very least it should be to honor their fallen but to say they are woefully under represented? I have to completely disagree with that. With the exception of Italy and Canada which I DO feel are under represented, the other factions just dont deserve the time.

I mean its hard to argue Finland deserves to be its own faction when in the entire course of WW2 only half a million Finish fought on the front lines. Germans deployed nearly 3 million men in Barbarossa alone. Just look at the Order of Battle for futher Proof. Finland contributed enough men for 2 Armies, Romania roughly the same, Hungry about the same manpower wise but it was divided up, and Italy... I dont remember *looks it up* jesus is it was less than a Corp.


Not to mention these armies were just of FAR LESSER QUALITY. Why bother having a military campaign of the Russians fighting Romanians who broke and ran within seconds during Operation Uranus when 5 miles north you have a German force twice as big give the Russians a lot of trouble. (Yes I know there are battles the Romanians did well in but again, why focus on those when you have FAR more compelling battles with bigger threats). Hell the entire reason Germans troops were deployed in Italy was because Hitler didnt believe the Italians would be able to defend their lands because they had gotten their ass kicked in every battle before that and the entire reason Uranus was launched against the locations they were launched at was because Zhukov knew the Romanians would break easily.



I mean several of the axis minor power were using German vehicles, kind of hard to make an entire faction out of them when they arnt very unqiue. Thats the reason why you never see Canada in these games, because Canada is pretty much British Infantry with American tanks.



You say I say I should brush up yet it seems like to me you are giving them way more credit than they deserve.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Palindrome wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
its kind of off in the land of whimsy to consider them as being important to combat operations as the US, UK, Germany, USSR, Japan etc. Hell I don't think most people even know the Continuation War happened at all, but lets not elevate such events vastly beyond their station (El Alamein included cause being bigger than either El Alamein or the North African campaign isn't much of a feat in WWII).

I am well aware of that, nor was I suggesting that the minor axis or allied powers made a vital contribution to the wars conclusion. Dismissing them out of hand however is deeply wrong, nearly everyone would have heard about El Alamein, hardly anyone outside of Finalnd would have heard about Tali-inhantala.

WWII computer games have shown extreme relectuantce to leave Normandy, it would be nice to get a bit more variation. Admittedly CoH2 is actually focused on the Soviets which makes a change but still.

Okay I want to make something clear. I am not saying that these people should be ignored/forgotten/anything like that. They shed blood and died defending their lands and they should all be recognized. All I am saying is that they should not be made INTO AN ENTIRE FACTION in a GAME. Its just bad from the gameplay standpoint and story.

Canada, Australia, and the UK all contributed quite a bit to the Pacific war but if a game is made from a Jap point of view, I expect the war to be focused on fighting the United States because when compared to the US, the other powers simply didnt do a lot there that a game should focus on them.

In the Western Front Canada played a huge roll but is it enough to deserve an entire faction? No at the most I would say do what CoHs did and simply say "these are Canadians" in a level.

In the Eastern Front, if you are going to include the minor axis at all, just make them the German faction for one level and say "These are ......." and than go back to focusing on Germany.

 Galdos wrote:
All I am saying is that they should not be made INTO AN ENTIRE FACTION in a GAME.

Why not? Just how many games have featured the 101st airborne, was their involvement greater or lesser than Hungary's? Yes minor powers did use other countries equipment and armour, that doesn't mean that they didn't make their own.

As to being lower quality well thats quite subjective. Italy didn't do well at all (a lot of this was to do with a near complete lack of heavy equipment on the eastern front), Hungary and Romania were variable but you simply can't say that Finland didn't do extremely well. After all they effectively beat the USSR twice even if they technically came to terms; thats a feat that no one else managed.

I don't mind CoH2 sticking to the Germans and the Soviets but I do strongly object to the notion that minor axis and allied powers shouldn't be included in as a faction in a game simply because their involvement was numerically less than the major nations. After all CoH had 'Panzer Elite', so if a single battalion can have its own faction then I don't see why an entire nation can't.

Palindrome wrote:

 Galdos wrote:
All I am saying is that they should not be made INTO AN ENTIRE FACTION in a GAME.

Why not? Just how many games have featured the 101st airborne, was their involvement greater or lesser than Hungary's? Yes minor powers did use other countries equipment and armour, that doesn't mean that they didn't make their own.

As to being lower quality well thats quite subjective. Italy didn't do well at all (a lot of this was to do with a near complete lack of heavy equipment on the eastern front), Hungary and Romania were variable but you simply can't say that Finland didn't do extremely well. After all they effectively beat the USSR twice even if they technically came to terms; thats a feat that no one else managed.

I don't mind CoH2 sticking to the Germans and the Soviets but I do strongly object to the notion that minor axis and allied powers shouldn't be included in as a faction in a game simply because their involvement was numerically less than the major nations. After all CoH had 'Panzer Elite', so if a single battalion can have its own faction then I don't see why an entire nation can't.

What game has the 101st Airborne as an entire faction in an RTS? Games cover the 101st because to the role they played in a single battle which happens to be a well known and important battle. The most they have is your are an airborne soldier in a FPS and thats a totally different story, feel free to have all these nations in an FPS, thats a totally different story and not that hard to do at all.

I never said Finland did poorly but I see how it seems like I meant that. What my point was when you are comparing them to Germany, the minor axis powers simply were no where as capable as the German troops. Yes they had good soldiers and im sure their are plenty of stories of them performing amazing actions against their enemies. (the entire Winter War shows off impressive Finland is) but compared to their opponents, they just werent as capable. The Allied powers for example rolled over Italy in Africa/Italy so much so that in any story that takes place on an Italian front, the main enemy of the Allies is the Germans because the player isnt interested in fighting an enemy that isnt percieved to be a threat.

If you are going to include a faction in a game, you need to add a campaign you fight as them (which COULD be good) or you fight against them which is going to be horrible. Playing as the Russians hearing you are fighting the Romanians? Not going to be fun as everyone and their mother in game is like "ha, this shouldnt be that bad, its not the Germans at least so it should be easier." Playing as the Finnish or Romanians could be interesting except they didnt fight in any of the really well known and impressive battles of the war. I would FAR PREFER to lead the Germans in breaking the Russian defense line as Kursk than playing as the Romanians in a completely unheard of battle. Every bit of time you spend on the minor powers is time and money being taken away of the main two competitors of the Eastern Front, the Soviets and Germans.

Its less as "because they are numerically less of them" as it is that they simply didnt have an impact. When you name all the big and major battles of the war you are going to see that every single battle, the vast majority of the troops fighting is one of the really big powers like the big 5 (6 if you include Italy) That is why I would be against having Romania or Finland added as a faction. I would prefer they put that time into making the Germans and Russians balanced and in the expansion you can release new factions like Italy and the US or UK