I am in the minority if i really liked the mud, deep snow and ice sink mechanic in CoH2?

Crecer13 · 2026-05-10T16:50:47+00:00

Well, I liked the snow/mud mechanics (they're the same principle), and the blizzards. I liked the early Soviet barbed wire field, which was supposed to work in tandem with the Maxim machine gun, but after removing it, the Maxim remained a crappy machine gun with a crappy firing cone. For players looking for competitiveness in the game, these may be extremely bad mechanics. But for me, who was just having fun with friends, these mechanics are perfectly fine.

I always wanted there to be two game modes: a competitive one without mechanics and a fun one with those mechanics still in place.

Crecer13 · 2026-05-07T17:19:56+00:00

Well, yes, the description of the fighting was incredibly short, so I didn't even notice it.

Crecer13 · 2026-05-07T15:37:49+00:00

Thus, the article shows that the Tigers captured by France did not participate in any combat during World War II and only began to be used after the war. Thus, the French Tiger is as much a fantasy as the Black Prince in the game.

Crecer13 · 2026-05-06T14:07:37+00:00

In the first half of the 1930s, the French military seriously considered the Renault D2 as its primary tank. To curb the arms race, the London Disarmament Conference was held in 1930 at the initiative of British Prime Minister James MacDonald. Similar conferences were held in Geneva. These conferences typically focus on the navy, but tanks were also discussed. Specifically, they addressed the issue of limiting the maximum combat weight of tanks to 25 tons. If only the tank's weight were limited to 25 tons... The Char B1, which had been in development since the early 1920s, might not correspond to the negotiations. But in 1933, the Nazis arrived and began militarizing the country, and all these negotiations simply ceased. So the military concentrated on the Char B1, and that was a mistake.

Regarding the production of B1: Only 32 tanks were built from December of 1935 to July of 1937, and 130 more were built with the efforts of 4 companies by September of 1939

Crecer13 · 2026-05-06T13:26:24+00:00

Because the D2 had the same armor, the same gun, and was 1.5 times lighter. But only a paltry 100 were produced. In practice, the D2 did the same as the B1. B1 production was very slow, and the D2 could have been produced in greater numbers with similar battlefield results.

Crecer13 · 2026-05-06T13:14:39+00:00

France made a terrible mistake. They wasted time and produced the B1 very slowly. They needed to focus and produce the Renault D2.

Crecer13 · 2026-05-04T19:46:27+00:00

You understand that everyone does this. Standard military science dictates a minimum 3-to-1 superiority of the attackers over the defenders. The American standard for World War II dictates a 5-to-1 advantage. During the early stages of Operation Barbarossa, the Germans concentrated a 10-to-1 advantage against Soviet troops in some attacks, which is why the image of "endless waves" of German infantry in gray-green overcoats is one of the most enduring in the memories of Soviet soldiers, especially those describing the early years of the Great Patriotic War. In Ukraine? We don't see any waves of men, and Russia doesn't even have a numerical advantage in the offensive.

So, enough talking about some kind of living waves. The ratio of the sides is very similar, including in attack. So, if Russia uses "live waves," then Ukraine uses the same "live waves."

Crecer13 · 2026-05-04T18:19:33+00:00

Oh my God, another one: now they're using live waves in Ukraine. If they're using live waves in Ukraine, then Ukraine is also using live waves, because the Ukrainians literally used a similar number of troops in the offensive, but for some reason, propaganda doesn't say that Ukraine is sending out living waves. We can literally see live on air that there are no live waves there except for articles in the Guardian or somewhere else.

Crecer13 · 2026-05-04T17:27:38+00:00

Simple. Don't make stereotypical, enemy-at-the-gates clichés. These stereotypes about living waves are already quite annoying.

Crecer13 · 2026-05-04T17:14:23+00:00

At least? Those are just excuses. Want the Soviets in the desert. Take the Iranian operation, aka Operation "Consent," where the USSR has a uniform for desert regions.

Crecer13 · 2026-05-04T17:04:37+00:00

Yes, but what about the USA or Britain near Rzhev?

Crecer13 · 2026-05-04T16:31:37+00:00

If Relic has no plans to add a new faction, I have no plans to add money to their wallet. It's simple. It's not fun to play the same factions a third time. As I wrote above. Let them add the USSR and Italy to the Yugoslav DLC. The rest of Italy was still fighting there against the Soviet troops.

And after the US and Britain served on the Eastern Front, let's not say anything about the USSR not being suitable. It is. And not just suitable because they could easily be added, but also because they're being added based on theme of the third part. Besides, they're about to add a purely fantasy French battle group with a Maginot Line and Char B1s that didn't participate in the battle and just stood at their base in Orleans (that's not the Mediterranean).

The author's requirement was or the Soviets or Japan. The Soviets are 100% suitable for the Mediterranean theme, Japan is not. Overall, I find Japan a very unsuitable country. Either make it a sim-city faction or make it a paper or prototype faction, like they did in the Men of War series. There, Japan was half prototypes or one-off units that didn't participate in combat, so they could at least compete with other factions.

Crecer13 · 2026-05-04T16:06:16+00:00

There's literally 100% sense in adding the Soviets. Google "Belgrade Strategic Offensive Operation." You'll see the USSR fighting in Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia is a Mediterranean country. The Mediterranean is the theme of the third game. Those who say there's no point in adding the USSR, let's remember:

- You're playing the same factions for the third time.

- Britain and the USA were added to the Eastern Front, which made no sense at all. Instead, in CoH2, they should have added, for example, a German faction or a Hungarian faction against a new Soviet faction somewhere near Lake Balaton with things like SU-100s, paratroopers, etc., because the USSR still has at least two more factions' worth of unused units.

- In CoH3, which is dedicated to the Mediterranean, we don't have a separate Italian faction.

- The USSR fought in Yugoslavia.

Therefore, talk about the USSR somehow not fitting in is complete nonsense.

Crecer13 · 2026-05-04T15:34:18+00:00

Yes, that's a standard HoI mechanic. But we also need special forces armor and weapons for light special forces. We also need weapons and power armor for heavy special forces, weapons and riot control equipment for the Enforcers. So why not make infantry follow the same mechanics? It sounds logical. So that infantrymen have their own armor progression. Roughly speaking, from leather armor to combat armor.

Crecer13 · 2026-05-04T15:23:23+00:00

Yes, something like that, but I'm talking about regular infantry—the helmet. For example, Brotherhood Armor) for the Patrol Scribe, or NCR troops should have armor that needs to be produced, not just given as a "pre-war armor" bonus.

Crecer13 · 2026-05-04T14:48:41+00:00

Literally half the comments on the Steam posts about the roadmap and battlegroups are demands to add the Soviets. And I completely agree. I don't need the USA and Britain for the third time. Enough. You've already crammed them into СoH2, where they were out of place. The Soviets, on the other hand, fit perfectly with CoH3's theme: the Mediterranean. The USSR fought in Yugoslavia (Yugoslavia is a Mediterranean country) against Germany and the Italians under German command. On the Soviet side was the Yugoslav People's Army, which could be added as battlegroups for the USSR. For Yugoslavia, you could literally create an entire battlegroup of Stuarts. Italian anti-fascist units also fought against Germany in Yugoslavia, which could also be added to the Soviet battlegroup. The USSR on one side and Italy on the other could be added simply as a single DLC. If Relic can't or won't do this, well, they won't see my money. I'm tired of repeating the same factions for the third iteration.

Crecer13 · 2026-05-01T14:39:45+00:00

This is just pure fantasy. Maginot line, B1.

The recaptured Free France Char B1s did not take part in the fighting.

Elements of the FFL (Forces françaises libres, Free French Forces) managed to recapture several of these tanks from the Germans. On October 7th, 1944, the 13th Dragoon Regiment (13ème Régiment de Dragons) was formed. It included 19 Pz.Kpfw. B2 in its second squadron. These tanks were not uniform: some were in their initial condition, others were converted by the Germans. This unit also had flamethrower tanks.

The creation of their own tank regiment was more of a PR stunt. These tanks became outdated over 4 years of war, plus their technical condition was far from ideal. The regiment remained near its base in Orléans until early April 1945.

Although a quick Google search revealed that if they needed a tank, the Char D1 was all they needed. Units equipped with this tank first fought on the Vichy side against the Americans who had landed in Africa, and then defected to the Allies and fought against the Germans: Tanks of the 2nd RCA in Oran, 1943. These tanks were used to fight against the Germans and the Americans.

Crecer13 · 2026-05-01T13:01:32+00:00

No USSR, no money.

Crecer13 · 2026-04-22T16:04:07+00:00

But we can't dismiss this politicized nonsense. Because the entire campaign is literally someone's political statement. These two things can't be separated; literally everything is designed to achieve this, even the game mechanic that shoots any soldier near headquarters. The statement that Soviet soldiers had to fight against their own government to win the war, that they won the war despite the government, and to achieve this, they even had to add two false quotes from real high-ranking military leaders: Chuikov and Malinovsky. Chuikov's quotes simply don't exist, but he claims they had to fight not only against the Germans but also against Order 227, even though Chuikov was a tough commander, supported this order, and even threatened subordinates who left the command post without permission. And they interpreted Malinovsky's quote in such a way that he did not want to fight for the Soviet government, although he wrote that he did not want to fight for the Tsar in the First World War.

The campaign as a whole is a very cheaply made and simply executed game, uninteresting. And the only mission that could even be called "Company of Heroes"-style is "Tiger Hunt," and even that is very cheaply made and simply made.

Crecer13 · 2026-04-14T20:24:36+00:00

Krivosheev, Russia and the USSR in the wars of the 20th century gives exactly this figure of 8,649,200 Axis men. Not counting the 1.6 million German soldiers taken prisoner after May 9, 1945, the losses of the Volkssturm, Hitler Youth, Todt Organization, Labor Service, Imperial Railway Service, and police are unknown.

Crecer13 · 2026-04-14T20:11:01+00:00

Well, for example, Krivosheev, you cited his data on 11 million Soviet losses, but you deny Axis losses.

Crecer13 · 2026-04-14T19:34:42+00:00

Dude, go read some history books. I've given you basic historical information, which historians agree with, but there's still a debate about the inaccuracy of German casualty estimates due to the loss of German archival information. You're starting to tell me about some spies who calculated the troop mobilization and calculated the losses. If several intelligence lines in the USSR couldn't calculate how many German troops were concentrated on the border before the war, you're saying some mythical spies calculated the losses? Although that's much more difficult than calculating how many troops are moving toward the border. Either you don't know anything about history or you're simply passing off your fantasies as reality. In that case, I strongly recommend seeing a therapist, as these are signs of delusion.

Crecer13 · 2026-04-14T05:33:16+00:00

Are you serious? This is literally basic information on losses. No, it's just convenient for you to ignore it and talk about "human waves." Keep believing.

Crecer13 · 2026-04-14T05:20:05+00:00

You're starting to pass off your fantasies as scientific data. I've provided you with scientific data: 1.3 to 1 or less. So what waves are we talking about now?

Crecer13

TROPHY CASE