Or the current overtuned units/battlegroups right now (some of which likely to be balanced in the patch coming next week) - I'd say you'll have a solid gameplay experience.Īnd if that's not enough encouragement, look at it like this. If you can look beyond the (honestly) minuscule things that people have complained about. It cannot be denied that they've made real and functional changes for the sake of improvement, to not encourage certain clearly unintended 'features' to gain the upper hand. One example of improvements (that people will ignore anyways) is the ones observed in this video. I mean what game today hasn't been complained about and canceled for utter nonsense? Yes there are issues, but that's most games that come out these days. But genuinely? I think it's an improvement over the previous title. I think a good part of the complaints are just people looking for something to complain about.Īnd I say this as someone who only got CoH2 because it was given for free.

COH3 just needs some tlc and time to respond to people and refine it. The problem is everyone wants games to be perfect out the gate and that doesn't happen much these days. I have to admit though 3 has potential to be great, right now 7.5/10 but I can see it being 9/10 in 6-8 months. I played over 1000 hrs with 1 and over 800 with 2. example is COH 1 doesn't even keep track of ranks in skirmish anymore. All old games start having issues running well with new operating systems etc.

COH3 is good game right now with potential to be great depending how the dev's handle the next 6 months to year.

COH2 at launch had 2 factions and was getting blasted left and right. I'm genuinely interested to hear if I should just play CoH2 for a while or go for a CoH3 purchase. Originally posted by Red Dragon:Are people just disappointed that CoH3 isn't enough of an improvement on a 10 year old game or is it genuinely actually worse than CoH2? (And if so do you have a few examples of how it is actually worse?)

Company of heroes 1 vs 3