My top ten reasons why MoW is better than CoH

[Meep129]

10: Paratrooper fire-up? "Ah gee, we are pinned down by an MG nest, that's ok lets become invincible and run up to it and throw a satchel charge!"

9: No German airborne, deploy from building? *palm to face*

8: Hey, I got it, lets NOT have an 88 FLaK not be able to kill a Sherman... AWESOME!

7: Wowee, lets spam the h3ll out of the Germans and build massive MG cities and AT guns!

6: While we are at it, how about OP British arty guns that we can build massive quantity's of and the Germans can't get within range to kill us!

5: Hmm, lets have decent American and British outnumber and outgun crappy German troops...5 Minutes into game!

4: American air strike+infective German AA=*Foot to face*

3: Oh yah because M-10 spam is a brilliant idea...

2: King Tiger can't drop units worth anything

1: AMERICAN AT GUN SHOOTS OUT OF ITS LOS TO KILL MY KING TIGER!!! after that i uninstalled it...

any suggestions, please ad...

[JuggernautOfWar]

I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head. +2 for CoH though for sound and graphics, but that's about it.

[Mkilbride]

Originally Posted by JuggernautOfWar

I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head. +2 for CoH though for sound and graphics, but that's about it.

That's why I'm playing MoW.

I was so sick of playing CoH, I had 3 MG's, two Rifle squads and setup a defense.

What happens? Germans charge with 2-3 squads and manage to take out two of my squads...what the ****? I had 2 .30 Cals firing them directly in the open, they weren't even in COVER! It just pissed me off to NO END how ineffective infantry were, you know? Basically, use infantry to stall the enemy, but then hurry up for Tanks.

Also I was once playing, build up 11 Shermans. YES, 11 of them. I told them to go out and fight 3 ENEMY TANKS. The Germans destroyed all of my Tanks...I managed to get them, but 11 VS 3? THEY WEREN'T EVEN TIGERS!



When I first played MoW it pissed me off because it's interface is annoying and it had some clunky controls. Now that I'm used to them though, it's SO MUCH FUN. Seriously, REAL military tactics WORK in MoW, unlike CoH.

MoW is superior in almost every way(Voice acting, graphics and optimization are CoH's strong points), MoW has better sound effects, ambiance, and gameplay.

Honestly, I always hoped for a good RTS like this and never thought it'd be by some no-name indie developer.

Srsly guys, good job.

[KeesFluitman]

Maybe it's not wise to compare these games.
Except for the World War two setting and the Genre RTS, they really have few things in common.

My statement has always been that games are games and there is always something which isnt realistic about it.

I don't think a man looking for a little dog will like the neighbor's big one.

and for your statements Mkilbride, you don't sound much like a good Company of Heroes player. You don't make the game like you, you have to learn to like the game. That way you'll also understand the ways of winning battles. Micro is an often used term for these things.

[RoTTenbox]

Originally Posted by KeesFluitman

Maybe it's not wise to compare these games.
Except for the World War two setting and the Genre RTS, they really have few things in common.

Well i have to agree with KeesFluitman, its fruitless to compare these games.
I play CoH aswell as World in Conflict, and i love them both for very different reasons. But Soldiers-Heroes of WWII was my first RTS game and i just loved it, at the time nothing else compaired with it, and the graphic's and physics for its time was ahead of everything else. As a matter of fact, it was only 6 months before the demo for MoW came out, i purchased a new copy of Soldier-Heroes of WWII and im still playing it today aswell as Faces of War.
But Men of War is definately toping my RTS list at the moment, but it definately needs patching.
Cheers.

[Prowlinger]

#1 reason why MoW is better than CoW?

The engine is completely mod friendly....

The community already has projects in the works for conversions of the engine for Mechwarrior, Korea, Civilwar, Starwars... etc you name it.

Can you do this with anything from Relic? Nada!

[Morgoth]

Originally Posted by KeesFluitman

Maybe it's not wise to compare these games.
Except for the World War two setting and the Genre RTS, they really have few things in common.

My statement has always been that games are games and there is always something which isnt realistic about it.

I don't think a man looking for a little dog will like the neighbor's big one.

and for your statements Mkilbride, you don't sound much like a good Company of Heroes player. You don't make the game like you, you have to learn to like the game. That way you'll also understand the ways of winning battles. Micro is an often used term for these things.

The thing is COH is nothing more than an arcadey RTS game where as MOW is or has much more realism,& if i personaly am playing a WW2 Strategy Game,atleast a degree of realism for me is required,& for me COH has no realism whats so ever,its the RTS equivlent of fighting soccer that footie game where you were actually alloud to beat up the apponents,maybe abit of fun for some people out there but without realism lasting ability dosnt go on for long.

Why?.Because people like to try different strategies & idea's on how to defeat the bad guys,but arcade style games usually have only 1 way to do that,that being,overwelm your enemies with larger forces.

Also in fairness to the negative comments of voice acting,there suppose to be troop voices,& troops are generaly not known for there intelligents or acting ability,so having gooky or crap talking soldiers i think is quite realistic.

[Meep129]

Originally Posted by JuggernautOfWar

I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head. +2 for CoH though for sound and graphics, but that's about it.

I agree but the voice overs in CoH were kinda bad , like lame accents and a half-German half-English phrase...
Then again the cinematic voice overs in MoW aren't top notch wither but in game extraordinarily good

[TLC]

1)COH is too arcade with abilities and cooldowns which sucks.2)No base building and being sent to the start if i tank gets thru.3)In COH multiplayer there are many ways you can basically cheat.4)MOW has locational vehicle dmg and damage modelling.5)MOW has projectile physics, no shells turning corners or going through hills.6)Inventory system ie losing your bazooka man doesn't lose you the bazooka.7)tactics WORK in MOW.COH is seen as a claasic so it shouldn't be worse than a little game like MOW but it is.9)MOW has hilarious voices, 'For the Motherland' is the thing an American would be least likely to say.10)End rant.

[Alter Hase]

Yes and ......no

Better realism and details

Worse (overburdening) in single player playability

Why, for a simple reason that all units need intense over the top micro which leads (at least me) to the using of the pause key more than anything else.

I play the german campaing of MOW and i had quite a few moments where i was on the edge of smashing the keyboard.

1st mision - annoying paras dropping from the sky set on "move at will" which lead to hideous unneccesary losses and me preocuppied more with chasing them and cursing "stop rushing the enemy you f...ng morons" than actual tactics.A gathering point that you could set up, would be nice.

Also some disparities in accuracy to range, between different weapons (aa quad gun killing my heavy 90 mil aa gun on max range, which was unable to hit anything, both in normal, or direct fire).

2nd mission 35 mil paks in "defensive positions".
Well those "defensive positions" are soo "good" that when you get the camera down on the ground, you see that they are on the open height, like on a piedestal, just waiting to be ripped to pieces with the first shell.
Aggain micro is needed to get them a little bit back. However in a (bad )tradition of previous similar games like "Soldiers HOWW" you dont have even a couple of seconds to look at yout troops, or positions, before the enemy starts rushing, pause, pause, pause, pause

Also why are soldiers given only a few rounds for a rifle or smg while the rest is in those damn crates.?
Pause, pause, pause, for every god damn soldier if you dont want them to run out of ammo in the mid of a fight.

Also my 88s cant hit anything(same for tanks) on any longer range if i don go direct controll, even then, its frustrating. On the other side those gyroscope stabilised british Crusaders and Matildas score every hit on my flak no matter how much you put them on the revers slope to be in a "hull down position" (i know its a term for tanks but i think you get the point).

Also tanks can see infantry in high bushes

This game is not ment to be played with whole armies under comand at least not with ai and accuracy of units now.