|
|
#11
03-04-2009, 02:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
PC Format has reviewd MoW and gave 84%
http://www.pcformat.co.uk/blog-entry/men-war-04-03-09 "It's a hard game, but that challenge and scope will be what keeps you coming back after your arse is handed to you. Again." - summarizes the author. 
|
|
#12
03-05-2009, 06:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
This is def one of the better games i've played in a while. Gameplay is addictive and frustrating (challanging). It's like company of heroes with the limits taken off.
Some awesome, realistic and intense WW2 battles. A little bit of stragity makes for a satisfying couple of hours of heroic war. Kill ze germaans
|
|
#13
03-05-2009, 10:50 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I love this game so much I could crush a grape ! As much as I have enjoyed playing Company of Heroes, Men of War is what I have been eagerly awaiting. COH = Hollywood WW2. MOW = Stalingrad WW2. Many, many thanks to everyone involved in making this great game
|
|
#14
03-06-2009, 08:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Out of curiosity, but why is CoH the hollywood WW2 ? I mean MoV has all the flashy explosions
|
|
#15
03-06-2009, 10:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I believe what Lancer means is that CoH is so arcady that it actually stinks and is more of a visual trip then any type of strategy game like Men of War.
You have to think and plot your next moves in MoW and not have a time limit to do it in like CoH. In CoH, the fastest man wins. How crappy and realistic is that? In MoW, the best tactics and strategy wins. You have to actually plot and plan to beat this game. Men of War was designed for a real thinking man. CoH was designed for the 'arcade kids'.
Last edited by thegrindre; 03-06-2009 at 10:59 PM.
|
|
#16
03-07-2009, 03:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I have to ask, but have you ever played CoH ? Or did you just pick that up from everybody else ? Because that is a load of nonsense.
Arcady ? And you are aware that it is MoW that has the direct control feature ? The fastest man wins ? Not really, but then, being fast is actually a viable strategy you know, question is, can you then hold what you have taken ?  But of course if you have a problem with speed, intensity and making choices, sometimes quick ones, like you know.. they had to in the real world And i would like to see the proof that CoH was designed for arcade kids while MoV was for thinking men So far all i have seen is that MoW is for braggards
|
|
#17
03-07-2009, 03:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
COH vs MOW
I have never lost a game in COH.
I follow a simply rule, I simply barrage the opposition with mortars and off screen artillery till it destroys practically everything. There is never any problem of ammo for artillery or mortar, that is endless. After every living thing I can see is destroyed I advance cautiously. If I lose even one unit I build it again. In games where I don't start with mortar there is a bit of a challenge, but once I start building things it is practically game over. If the above is not a description of arcade game then I don't know what is. In contrast to this ammo is limited in MOW, I am in the fifth mission of Soviet side and I am yet to encounter mortars. Every thing seems vulnerable. You have to take care of every soldier you have and every weapon you. Nothing can be built up like a production line. You have limited ammo. If you cannot see the difference between the two, then obviously Men of War is not the game for you. You should try Age of Empires, you will enjoy that more than COH.
|
|
#18
03-07-2009, 04:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Was that in the singleplayer campaign or in multiplayer you pulled that off if i may ask ? And i have to say, that must be one of the most dull strategies to pull off in a singleplayer game nonetheless, and if it is all that you do, then sure it is going to be boring, but then, it is your own fault
Though to be honest, i have a hard time seeing mortars and off map artillery only being a viable winning strategy.But i cannot imagine that working in multiplayer, especially not against any competent opponent.. Quote:
How about one where you take direct control of your units And to be honest, that sounds more like Commandos than any RTS game, if anything, more an RTT.Quote:
Yet you seem so determined to say that CoH is trash while Men of war is pure gold, and the way you seem to talk down to me.. Well if Men of War is so great, should it not be obvious to me and you should not have to act all arrogant towards me ?
|
|
#19
03-07-2009, 04:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Played alot rated CoH. And yes its much more of an arcade game then MoW is. When it comes to realism MoW is light years ahead.
But CoH is still alot more realistic then the average RTS game out there and arcade isnt always a bad thing.' I like both CoH and MoW in different ways. Even tho CoH could need some fixes *cough* british faction *cough*. As for the whole mortar/arty spam thing Donjas think hes King of. That just sux in CoH and is only good fighting noobs on maps that are pretty much made for that. If you really think your so good try to play some rated 1vs1 and not fighting noobs/computers on BS maps. Last edited by Evilsausage; 03-07-2009 at 04:31 PM.
|
|
#20
03-07-2009, 05:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I was talking about single player but if you are so interested in multiplayer then they are plenty of games that focus better on multiplayer. Warhammer is a good example. And Dawn of War.
I can't take a game seriously where you can produce human beings off a production line. A world where ammunation is unlimited. And that is what COH is. You talked about my artillery usage, but why shouldn't I when it gets me easy victories. I think we two belong in two differerent gaming universes. You belong to the camp of which of which warcraft and Age Of Empires are the prime examples, I of which Myth 2 Soulblighter is the prime example. We both have our tastes and each of us is right on our own way.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
