So previoulsy you had to shill out some some cash and pre-order the game to get into the beta. Now you just have to "like" them on facebook. I'm tempted...
This should have been in the games forum. Could someone move it over there. Sorry. :(
MMMMMMMY MY MMMY PAAAAAAAAAANTTTTTTTSSSSS
It's worth a try, of course. It's suppose to be pretty good.
Gave it shot. Plays pretty much like the last one. That's not really a bad thing, still I suck at it.
I don't like RTS games, mostly because I am bad at them too. I wish I liked them because this one is supposed to be really good.
Not being good at something never bothered me. Mostly I like the spectacle of these type of games.
Shit, age has not being kind to me. I've got my ass handed to me, twice, by the standard AI.
Mortars kicking my ass.
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 17, 2013, 08:25:55 PM
Shit, age has not being kind to me. I've got my ass handed to me, twice, by the standard AI.
Mortars kicking my ass.
Yeah, so did I. Tried a multiplayer match but wasn't anymore successful.
Bought the first one when it was on sale, but it was far too hectic for me, even in the tutorial missions.
I played the first one (SP) with lots of pausing. In MP I got my ass kicked.
I've played a few games of it with and without friends. It's honestly just too fast-paced for me to be able to keep up. If I'm in my base building something, my units are dying, and if I'm not in my base building, I'm falling behind on production and will lose. It's insane.
The game is out for 49.99. For an extra 30 bucks you get the digital deluxe thingie:
The Digital Collector's Edition includes the following:
Vehicle Skin Combo Pack
- 24 Vehicle Skins
Exclusive Collector Faceplate
- Collector's Edition Faceplate with Integrated Badge
Commander Archetypes
- Soviet Commanders
--- Anti-Infantry Tactics
--- Conscript Support Tactics
--- Terror Tactics
- German Commanders
--- Joint Operations Doctrine
--- Spearhead Doctrine
Commander Pass
- Access to Five Commander Archetype's Available Post-Launch (same a above?)
Theater of War Mini Pack
Post Launch Content Bundle (skins/commanders mentioned above?)
Company of Heroes Complete Pack
- The Award Winning Game Collection that Started it All
You can get the 24 skins and 5 commander types as DLC, too, for a combined 50+ EUR/USD.
Choice comment on Steam forum:
QuoteWhy so anti Soviet?
Why so much hate to soviets? U know i live in Russia and i am proud that i was born and live for some time in Soviet Union. You include Soviet camping in game and make soviets look like monsters. The only good person in game is Lev Abramovich Isaakovich wtf is that rly? there is 0 Russian names like that if i want to be a jew i would play games about jews and not soviets. Absolutly rasict game. Will not buy it after i know details about campaing. Btw 90% of Russian citizens proud about their soviet past.
:bleeding:
http://steamcommunity.com/app/231430/discussions/0/864971660969613070/
(devolves into "The West has its history wrong! Soviet Union was OSSUM!" within a few posts)
TBH the double patronymic does sound kind of weird. Should be something like Lev Avramovitch Bergstein or something.
Quote from: Queequeg on June 25, 2013, 06:07:27 PM
TBH the double patronymic does sound kind of weird. Should be something like Lev Avramovitch Bergstein or something.
Presumably Lev Avramovitch didn't sound Jewish enough. I've played though several of the single player missions, I wish they would get to the ones were I build bases. I mean, that is supposed to be the meat and potatoes of these type of games.
I miss the old style RTS where you could fire up a skirmish on a random map. :(
I played the beta a fair amount and honestly I just did not like the changes in the game. It didn't feel like CoH at all. I couldn't keep up with everything that was going on in the game and it annoyed me too much. I see that many reviews are saying the game is definitely not as amazing as CoH is, so I think a lot of people think exactly what I do.
Yeah, it's disappointing. It's almost a step back.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 01, 2013, 03:39:04 PM
Yeah, it's disappointing. It's almost a step back.
Please explain. Is there too much micro compared to the first game (it was going in that direction with the expansions)?
The campaign had to little base building, and the skirmish mode removed a lot of features. For instance, the Soviets can't build bunkers now, and nobody can build those neat medic stations from the first game. The soviets had an interesting mechanic in the campaign where you can summon a unit of conscripts every 30 seconds to reinforce existing squads but it isn't used in any form in the skirmish and multiplayer. In fact a lot of the balance of multiplayer is tossed out in favor of grinding out advantages with XP.
Quote from: Ancient Demon on July 05, 2013, 07:20:59 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 01, 2013, 03:39:04 PM
Yeah, it's disappointing. It's almost a step back.
Please explain. Is there too much micro compared to the first game (it was going in that direction with the expansions)?
At the current pace of the game, there was simply too much micro involved. I couldn't keep up. I'm not a South Korean Starcraft player, so I didn't try to memorize the keyboard shortcuts and all that like I did with CoH. That probably hindered my ability, and part of it was the "newness" of the Soviets and not fully understanding their abilities, and part of it was probably that I hadn't played CoH in a couple of years, either.
I never memorized keyboard shortcuts, this one is suppose to be much easier on that front. It uses like 4 keys for everything.
I hadnt played the original CoH but I had downloaded it from one of the many Steam sales over the years for cheap. After reading some of the comments that CoH2 wasnt as good as the first one I decided to give the original a try.
Wow that is a really fun game. I wish I had tried it sooner.
Not sure if it is worth picking this one up based on the reviews though. I got burned picking up Diablo III based on how much I had enjoyed DI+II. Dont want to make that mistake again.
Could DLC or an add on make it better?
Quote from: Queequeg on July 09, 2013, 11:14:48 AM
Could DLC or an add on make it better?
Anything is possible. It looks like they are planing to release at least 4 DLCs. They have this Theater of War mode that is essentially a collection of challenge maps and skirmishes. The first one is for 1941 (and plan to produce one for each year of the war), unfortunately it's not well balanced. The Soviets can produce a lot of T-34s very cheaply and the Germans don't get anything that can really counter it. The German tank is the Panzer IV with the short barreled howitzer cannon. They can also build a StuG Self-propelled gun with the same cannon. Neither is effective in tank to tank battles. Curiously there is no T-26 or BT series tanks which were the mainstay of the Soviet tank inventory in 1941. The Soviets can produce a light T-70 tank, but that wasn't put in to production by 1941.
So is this worth it?
Quote from: Queequeg on July 23, 2013, 01:39:04 PM
So is this worth it?
I enjoy playing the Skirmishes, but if I were you, I would wait till there is a decent steam sale before buying. I found the single player campaign disappointing due to the lack of base building for over half the missions. The skirmishes are fun, but it feels stripped down. Several features that were in the first game don't exist or are cut down. The commander trees are cut down, so now there is only one path and there is a lot of redundancies in them. Many commander paths will share abilities and units with other paths. Soviets can't build bunkers (God only knows why), and the medic stations from the first game are gone. The Soviets in Skirmish mode don't feel that different from the Americans in the first game. Oddly the game doesn't give you as much information about units as it did in the first game. A unit in Company of Heroes might have a rating of 7 against armor 5 against infantry. In this game you have no idea. There is no ratings. AI is a better I'll give them that.
What's urban combat feel like?
Quote from: Queequeg on July 23, 2013, 06:30:29 PM
What's urban combat feel like?
There is very little of it. In the Skirmish maps there is only one that could be called urban, and it's not exactly densely packed. The single player game has some urban maps, but mostly the building are already destroyed and essentially function as corridors. I've not seen any of the maps where you have a nice orderly city that gets blown all to hell due to combat like in the first game, which was something I really liked.
That's really disappointing.
The game does have some good sides. The winter mechanics are neat, the AI is much better, the graphics are improved and the game has the same excellent sound and voice acting (Well the accents are a bit over the top at times). I suppose the biggest problem with the game is that doesn't exceed or even equal the previous entry. So I came away disappointed. I'd wait till you can find it for under 30 bucks.
Do the NKVD really have posh accents in the finished game? Does Relic understand how Communism works?
Quote from: Queequeg on July 23, 2013, 11:29:41 PM
Do the NKVD really have posh accents in the finished game? Does Relic understand how Communism works?
No, and no. Their history is dodgy just like in the first game. I remember the cutscenes from the first game would show military counters moving across the map, but it was clear the developers had no idea what they meant.
Decided to wait, I think. Really disappointed. CoH was one of my favorite games from the last decade, and the East Front is obviously one of my many obsessions.
Bought it.
Better than expected. I think the campaign is a bit offensive, tbh; the American campaign is YAHOO AMERICA Band of Brothers sillyness, while this starts off with a Jewish Soviet officer asking if the war was worth it, which makes him a total fucking bitch; very few Soviet Jewish families survived the war intact. The portrayal of ethnic Russians in generally seems a bit problematic; some things that really should be heroic are just "meh, we're not real people anyway" stupidity.
The skirmishes are actually pretty fun. There's certainly a Starcraft 2 lack of ambition problem; I'd expect a lot more scorched earth and partisan options for the Soviets, and generally speaking they're a bit too similar to the Amerikantsy. The lack of static defense options seems a bit silly, given their importance at Kursk, and dealing without dedicated anti-tank infantry was fucking difficult at first, but the strength of Soviet artillery is pretty neat. I just recently discovered how useful the Su-76 is, and it's a thing of real beauty; flanked by a scout and some penal infantry it's pretty great. I was static defense-artillery focused both as an American and British-Canadian player, so it's tough dealing with lack of static options, but the depth of Soviet artillery options is pretty neat.
I have really enjoyed the first CoH. After I have played out EU4 I will probably pick this up when it goes on sale
Quote from: Queequeg on July 26, 2013, 02:54:55 PM
Bought it.
Better than expected. I think the campaign is a bit offensive, tbh; the American campaign is YAHOO AMERICA Band of Brothers sillyness, while this starts off with a Jewish Soviet officer asking if the war was worth it, which makes him a total fucking bitch; very few Soviet Jewish families survived the war intact. The portrayal of ethnic Russians in generally seems a bit problematic; some things that really should be heroic are just "meh, we're not real people anyway" stupidity.
The skirmishes are actually pretty fun. There's certainly a Starcraft 2 lack of ambition problem; I'd expect a lot more scorched earth and partisan options for the Soviets, and generally speaking they're a bit too similar to the Amerikantsy. The lack of static defense options seems a bit silly, given their importance at Kursk, and dealing without dedicated anti-tank infantry was fucking difficult at first, but the strength of Soviet artillery is pretty neat. I just recently discovered how useful the Su-76 is, and it's a thing of real beauty; flanked by a scout and some penal infantry it's pretty great. I was static defense-artillery focused both as an American and British-Canadian player, so it's tough dealing with lack of static options, but the depth of Soviet artillery options is pretty neat.
Yeah, I can understand how some Russians are unhappy with their portrayal. The main character is sort of a analogue for Vasily Grossman, but his disillusionment with the Soviet Union came from the antisemitism of the post war more then anything else. My biggest beef with the game is that the mechanics seemed to have been pared down, and I have no idea why.
"Streamlined" for the "mainstream" audience.
Quote from: sbr on July 27, 2013, 07:09:27 PM
"Streamlined" for the "mainstream" audience.
I have a feeling that it has more to do with the chaos of shifting publishers, production difficulties, and a different design philosophy. For instance the singleplayer Soviets and the Skirmish Soviets play very differently. I suspect there was a difficulty in balancing the Soviet faction in skirmish so they ended up reducing a lot of it's distinctiveness. The developers were also shifting direction which could be seen in the previous title Dawn of War II which lacked base building at all in the single player instead developing a weird little RPG type game and an over reliance on scripted events. I can't help but think there was an effort to make a Call of Duty RTS, which I don't care for.
http://www.polygon.com/2013/7/25/4553536/is-company-of-heroes-2-anti-russian
QuoteCCompany of Heroes 2 found broad favor with the media, gaining an 80 percent average on Metacritic. But there's one group of people who really don't like the game.
Critics in Russia and the countries of the former Soviet Union say its portrayal of the Eastern Front in World War II plays to Western bias about history and clichés about the Soviet war effort.
Following a video posted by 'Bad Comedian' in Russia, fellow countrymen bombarded Metacritic, dragging the game's user score down to 2.2. "The story is not true and is a complete falsification of the history of Russia and its methods of warfare," wrote one. Another added that the game had taken "dirty myths about war and turned the story into ideological rubbish."
Thousands of people have signed a Change.org petition that attempts to persuade Steam to block the game in CIS countries. The petition brands the game as "disgusting."
Sergey Galyonkin runs a popular games blog in Ukraine and works for Russian developer Nival, which has created military games like Blitzkrieg. "CoH2 manages to use almost every single Russia-related trope," he said. "Gulags, army without any weapons, Russians shooting their own soldiers in the back. By the third mission I was honestly expecting to see bear cavalry."
He points out the differences in CoH 2's narrative compared with the first game, which dealt with Western forces in France. The original Company of Heroes has a definite Band of Brothers vibe that portrays men and officers working in harmony.
The second game focuses on the brutality of the Red Army's generals, including tactics like sending soldiers into battle without weapons and mass shootings of retreating soldiers. The game's story focuses on the Soviet Union's repressive political climate and how this played out in the field of war.
Relic says that the game reflects historical realities, and points to historical research and personal testimony from Russian soldiers.
Its critics say that while the Eastern Front did see unprecedented barbarism and cruelty, Relic has been selective in its narrative choices, preferring to ignore what people in Russia celebrate as a noble sacrifice that did more to save the world from Nazism than the American-led invasion from the West.
In Russia and other former Soviet countries, the Great Patriotic War is about a heroic unified cause, not about repressive leaders throwing men against machine guns. The issue is complicated by Cold War myth-making by the Soviet Union and by Hollywood. Facts are obscured by a long, hostile political climate that has always sought to make claims on history.
For decades, the most reliable testimony to come from the Eastern front was sourced to Soviet dissidents or Germans. Official Soviet documentation was censored and colored to the point of absurdity.
Even today, attempts to portray the Red Army negatively cause outrage in Russia. Current president Vladimir Putin wants to pass a censorship law making it illegal to portray the Soviet war effort as anything other than a glorious march to victory.
National myths are extremely powerful, and never more so than with World War II. For America, the war validates ideas about the struggle for freedom. For Britain, it represents pluck against terrible odds. For France, the nobility of resistance. In Russia, it is about the necessity of sacrifice.
Around 20 million Russians lost their lives in World War II. That's about 14 percent of the population at the time. The United States lost 420,000 lives, about 0.3 percent of the population. Russia's war, of course, was fought on Russian soil.
Lukasz Markiewicz is Polish (and Poland, he says, has "the fewest reasons to say anything good about the Soviets"). But he charges Relic with distorting the facts about the Eastern Front.
"The campaign is basically one giant, offensive stereotype," he said. "The events on the Eastern Front were likely the most grim four years in the history of mankind. There is nothing wrong with trying to recreate that. It is wrong however to essentially reduce it to the lazy stereotype of German Übermensch Wehrmacht and SS against the Soviet Horde."
A common criticism on Russian forums is that the game takes its cues from Western movies like Enemy at the Gates (pictured above), in which soldiers are sent against German machine guns, without weapons, hoping to pick up a rifle from a dead comrade.
"There was no such things as one rifle for two men, except in rare cases of total logistical failure," said Markiewicz, a 27-year-old tax officer with a BA in ancient history [The Fuck?]. "There were no 'human wave' attacks on MG40 nests, unless the NCO fucked up royally, which was grounds for demotion or a military tribunal.
"There are plenty of examples of staggering Soviet brutality and incompetence," he added. "If you pick and choose your evidence, you can weave a narrative similar to that in Enemy at the Gates. I'm not trying to engage in some sort of historical revisionism. The Eastern Front was a confrontation of two murderous, totalitarian regimes. The problem is, this brutality gets turned up to eleven and ends up being a parody."
David Stone is a professor of military history at Kansas State University, specializing in the Soviet Union. "Designers and developers have to look to ways to make what they're doing stand out from the crowd." he said. "That means that an Eastern Front game is going to have to play up elements that are stereotypically part of the Eastern Front to make it look different from all the other combat games out there, even if that does some violence to the historical record. So in that sense, it makes sense that Relic would emphasize snow, political commissars and lack of equipment even if it's exaggerated."
He said that much of Relic's portrayal is rooted in fact, but soldiers being sent into battle without rifles is "something that really belongs to Russia in World War I, not the Soviet Union in World War II."
Company of Heroes 2 uses a mechanic that allows the player to deploy soldiers using 'cheap' conscripts, as opposed to building them at your base. This useful boost is balanced cleverly, by invoking 'Order 227.' Any retreat during this phase carries a reasonably high chance that your forces will be executed by the high command.
Order 227 was issued by Soviet dictator Josef Stalin, and created penal battalions whose purpose was to prevent retreats by Soviet forces. From a military point of view, it was not a successful tactic. The game's use of Order 227 is, according to Stone, realistic, although specific only to certain points in the war.
"That did happen, particularly in spring 1942 around Stalingrad," he said. "Soldiers and officers who retreated or deserted might also find themselves assigned to punishment battalions which were used for particularly dangerous or bloody missions. The Soviets also used 'blocking detachments' on occasion, particularly behind punishment battalions, to shoot those retreating. Definitely happened, not necessarily common."
Galyonkin says the mechanic is overblown. "The story creates a fictional army bent on self-destruction," he said. "The missions show Soviets killing more of their own people than the enemy. Nobody does that, not even Russians. It makes no sense."
Relic argues that Company of Heroes 2 is historically balanced, and rejects the charge that the game wraps its narrative around isolated incidences. "In a war the scale of the Eastern Front, we had to choose specific battles and incidences to deliver the breadth of the narrative," said game director Quinn Duffy.
He said that the campaign was inspired by the writing of Vasily Grossman (pictured below), a combat journalist who spent three years on the front lines and had "unparalleled access to the commanders of the various fronts." His work, said Duffy, "illustrates the unparalleled bravery amongst the front line troops, but also cruelty, petty disputes, competition and egos clashing at all levels of the military hierarchy."
Duffy said that the game seeks to explain the "awe" the team feels about the efforts of Soviet men and women who were "faced with a hardened German enemy and some of the mistrust and cruelty exhibited by members of the Soviet leadership." He also said that he read dozens of books on the Eastern Front, from all perspectives so that "we were as fair as could be."
So what about those soldiers being sent into battle without rifles? "It's entirely plausible to believe that happened," said Duffy. "It might be cliché, but it illustrates the challenges the Soviets faced." He said it was "also a way to demonstrate their resolve. It's not about cruelty or incompetence, it's about desperation and bravery." Duffy cites various sources that spoke of severe equipment shortages as the Soviets fell back in the face of rapid German advances, in 1942.
It's clear that Relic did more to research its game than watch some Hollywood movies, and that most of the game is based on real differences between the strategic and tactical environments of Eastern and Western Fronts. But storytelling and emphasis are always tricky things, especially when it comes to a subject as colossally emotive as The Great Patriotic War. The comments on forums and on Metacritic are testament to the strong feelings that the war still generates.
Although Relic says it's celebrating the bravery of the Russians, critics of the game in that country view it as yet another negative portrayal of themselves, the sub-human Slavic obediance-bot, primed for violence, ever-ready to throw his own worthless carcass into the mill for the greater good. There can be little doubt that this stereotype is alive and well in Western contemporary entertainment.
Duffy believes the main differences between the first and second games are more complex. He said that the second game is painted on a broader canvas, with its narrator exploring the brutality of the war and Soviet state terrorism, which certainly existed. In contrast, the first game focused on a small group of soldiers and did not seek to take a wider view.
"The big difference for me was when we looked at early narrative ideas for Company of Heroes 2, we couldn't find a direct correlation of a unit to follow the way we could in Normandy. It's rare to find a Soviet unit that survived the war intact," he said.
And he points out that reactions from the East are not entirely negative. "We've had a number of tweets, Facebook and forum posts that talk very positively to the tone of the experience we've portrayed," he said. "One gentleman showed his grandfather, a tank driver in WW2, the game and he was enthralled. That's enough for me."
Russians really need to come to grips with their own history. A lot of the stuff in the game is exaggerated, but the Soviets did execute vast numbers of their own soldiers and did use human wave tactics a lot in the desperate days of 1941, and 1942.
I think a middle ground is probably about right. There's a lot of offensive, silly stuff in the game that is all the weirder because of the completely un-nuanced campaigns in the original CoH and it's expansion.
Also it's really weird that people just switch back and forth calling the Red Army "Russian." It really wasn't.
Quote from: Queequeg on July 28, 2013, 06:12:11 PM
I think a middle ground is probably about right. There's a lot of offensive, silly stuff in the game that is all the weirder because of the completely un-nuanced campaigns in the original CoH and it's expansion.
The first game wasn't exactly historically accurate. I did find it annoying that the main character equates the Soviets with the Nazis at the end of the game. No Jew would have done that. Now that I think about it, the game dwells on the brutality of the Soviet army, but really doesn't discuss the predatory and psychotic nature of the German occupation.
Jews were disproportionately targeted in the Purges, so if he'd lost his entire family in the 30s I think the comparison might be possible; but if his family was targeted then I don't know how he is an officer in 41. It's all a bit silly. And yeah, there's really no understanding of how horrifying the German occupation was, or that their entire goal in the war was the extermination of the peoples of the USSR.
Russian distributor 1c has pulled the game from sales in Russia/CIS.
Quote from: Syt on August 07, 2013, 02:57:35 PM
Russian distributor 1c has pulled the game from sales in Russia/CIS.
Kind of silly. A lot of stuff is super overblown (Soviet soldiers who left their post to rescue their commanding officer, retaking a town and killing a shitton of German-Fascists are shot on sight), and some of it is poorly written, but I think it actually comes close to capturing at least a little bit of the idiosyncrasies of the Soviet war machine-I like that artillery is way more important and devastating, and the lack of a barracks makes things super-centralized.
Quote from: Queequeg on August 07, 2013, 06:01:20 PM
Quote from: Syt on August 07, 2013, 02:57:35 PM
Russian distributor 1c has pulled the game from sales in Russia/CIS.
Kind of silly. A lot of stuff is super overblown (Soviet soldiers who left their post to rescue their commanding officer, retaking a town and killing a shitton of German-Fascists are shot on sight), and some of it is poorly written, but I think it actually comes close to capturing at least a little bit of the idiosyncrasies of the Soviet war machine-I like that artillery is way more important and devastating, and the lack of a barracks makes things super-centralized.
Wait, which part do they shoot the Germans on sight? I thought the Polish thing could have been done better. Instead of murdering the Polish resitance fighters, there should have been a mission where you help them set up the revolt and the fall back to watch them die, something the Soviets actually did.
The push was exhausted. That's an urban myth.
And SOVIET soldiers are killed by NKVD for saving officer and killing Germans.
So am I missing something or does the game totally skip Operations Uranus and Bagration, and Kursk?
Quote from: Queequeg on August 07, 2013, 08:31:27 PM
The push was exhausted. That's an urban myth.
And SOVIET soldiers are killed by NKVD for saving officer and killing Germans.
Oh, come on now. Warsaw was only a few miles away when the uprising started and the Soviets didn't move on the city for several months. The uprising began in early August and the Soviets took the city in mid January. They could have gotten out and pushed their tanks to Waraw in that time. In the time period they overran Romania and Bulgaria and most of Hungary so weren't that exhausted.
So is there ever any reason to use a Soviet MG over a captured German one?
Quote from: Queequeg on August 13, 2013, 11:46:37 AM
So is there ever any reason to use a Soviet MG over a captured German one?
If the game play is the same as the original, isnt it always better to have a basic infantry unit pick up the advanced weapons of the enemy?
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 13, 2013, 02:52:36 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on August 13, 2013, 11:46:37 AM
So is there ever any reason to use a Soviet MG over a captured German one?
If the game play is the same as the original, isnt it always better to have a basic infantry unit pick up the advanced weapons of the enemy?
I think he's talking about the heavy MGs. In this game the Soviet heavy MGs have a much more narrow arch of fire then the German ones. The only disadvantage to using the German MGs as the Soviets is that you can't build them so you have to kill the German crews first.
Also seem to have much slower rate of fire. I mean, I get that the MG42 was an amazing weapon but it's a huge advantage for the Germans.
33% off weekend sale on Steam. Now 40 bucks. Worth it or wait for a bigger reduction?
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 19, 2013, 06:48:24 PM
33% off weekend sale on Steam. Now 40 bucks. Worth it or wait for a bigger reduction?
Have you played through the original and opposing forces expansion? ( I really liked the British campaign). If so you can take a whack at it.
Why do you say that? Original is better and cheaper?
It something else?
Quote from: sbr on September 19, 2013, 11:33:09 PM
Why do you say that? Original is better and cheaper?
It something else?
Yes, I liked the original better.
I think I will just keep playing the original then
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 20, 2013, 03:21:11 PM
I think I will just keep playing the original then
I'd wait fill a 50%. It's not a terrible game, in fact it's pretty good, but it badly over shadowed by the first (which is my favorite RTS).