Company of Heroes Vs Starcraft 2 - The Best RTS?

Among Company of Heroes and Starcraft 2, which one you think the best RTS? Despite I am a great fan of Company of Heroes but I think the honor goes to Starcraft 2. What ya say guys?

Whoa whoa whoa.

I really like both. Starcraft gets more cred since it's almost universally understood to be a polished, highly playable game that is also fun. COH might take a little more convincing, but SC will probably be the popular one here. If need be, I will defend COH to the death.

CoH is a beautiful looking game with better game mechanics than SC.

CoH has better gameplay mechanics?

Maybe, if you count realism as a part of gameplay mechanics. CoH has more factors determining a battle such as the cover system and a bit of destructibility.

In other words, units don't act as they are told with 100% responsiveness. As there is element like unit getting pinned down, tank with engine problem, etc.

In Starcraft 2, when you tell a group of marines to back off, or a bunch of reapers to harass the enemy supply line, they response exactly as you told them, regardless of incoming enemy fire or how much health is left.

In CoH, unit responsiveness is affected by injury as well.

So CoH is more realistic but it does that by sacrifice of total unit responsiveness based on the player's input.

Everything in Starcraft 2 is 100% player's input.

Like reflex, situational awareness and plan.

In CoH, all of those do present but affected by random factors.

CoH is better if you prefer simulation gameplay, but for competitive players Starcraft 2 is the way to go.

Me? I prefer CoH as I am not a competitive gamer, I play for gratification.

CoH has better gameplay mechanics?

Maybe, if you count realism as a part of gameplay mechanics. CoH has more factors determining a battle such as the cover system and a bit of destructibility.

Ravenchrome

To clarify, I am in your boat. Don't think I am attacking you on any of this :P

Perhaps mechanics is the wrong word. I like the cover system and the engine damaged/treads knocked out. I like positioning guys to get the better drop on enemies, scoring hits on enemy flanks. Above all, I love it when enemy squads run the eff away from my armour. In many ways, having a siege tank helps your units in SC, but if a single zergling can get past and penetrate its armour when you're not looking, that just feels wrong. I like COH's "infantry fights infantry, AT deals with tanks, bullets won't do anything to that armour".

Starcraft is very mathematical, or calculated. Like taking a marine to a battlecruiser, you just don't do it. Unless the BC has very low health and you got a bunch of marines. But a squad of rangers to a Panzer IV? Luck might be on your side. I like the randomness. Battles aren't always straight forward. Sometimes you might score a lucky hit, other times you might just take out its main gun. That's actually what makes COH better for me, that units aren't straight forward, move and attack. They have moving parts that can be destroyed or damaged that drastically turn the tide of the battle. You can have your squad jump on a captured machine gun and suppress an enemy long enough for you to roll out vehicles.

I like COH better but I am having lots of fun with Starcraft 2 right now. Two very different games

well i played coh for a half a year, and im bored with sc2 after 1month. And sc2 is defnitley less balanced then coh

They are both very different styles of RTS. Starcraft 2 was designed to be competitive and the results of matches are based almost entirely on skill. Whereas CoH is slightly more realistic, and as such has more random-elements. Both are great games in their own right. I personally like SC2 better because it had a better Single-player, and I prefer the competitive style of multiplayer.kieranb2000

Not being a multiplayer person, I prefer Company of Heroes on gameplay terms. Starcraft 2 has a considerable advantage in polish, though, and it's a pity that Relic doesn't have the funds to make a game of that production quality.

I think there is no concrete answer to the question.

Its like comparing Halo to Arma II - two very different games.

I personally prefer CoH because I find its fun almost all the time (unless your getting stomped in a MP match, which doesn't happen very often) whereas SC II is only fun if you are winning.

I also find SC II to be very static - everything feels calculated and there is almost no room for comebacks if you are behind.

I've found in CoH there are some ridiculous games where one team is way ahead, then the other team co-ordinates and manages to turn the tide of battle just in time.

There is also a 'aww snap, awesome' factor to CoH that is absent from SC II (like landing a direct hit with artillery, watching a group of enemy tanks drive over a bunch of mines you laid) which i think makes CoH a more exciting game to play.

I can see why many prefer SC II though.

Starcraft 2 for me is the best. It rewards you for the time you put in and it can be literally a whole new game every time you play. I just played 3 terran vs zerg matches and all of them were different (I won all three :P). One ended where both of us were going for bases races. While another was me slowly whittling down the other zerg who was going off a two base play. Playing on the gold to diamond level ramps up the fun by quite a bit.

But both games are literally completely different. I couldn't get into company of heroes except for its single player campaign and skirmishes but I can clearly see it's own executed formula of rts mechanics.

Starcraft 2 for me is the best. It rewards you for the time you put in and it can be literally a whole new game every time you play. I just played 3 terran vs zerg matches and all of them were different (I won all three :P). One ended where both of us were going for bases races. While another was me slowly whittling down the other zerg who was going off a two base play. Playing on the gold to diamond level ramps up the fun by quite a bit.

But both games are literally completely different. I couldn't get into company of heroes except for its single player campaign and skirmishes but I can clearly see it's own executed formula of rts mechanics.

Roris0A

a betetr question.. which is the betetr game warcraft 2 or starcraft 2..

warcraft 2 pre b.net edition was the COOLEST thing since sliced bread.. and is arguebaly the first game to ever have a MOD.. namely the third party multiplayer network. to this day its probably more secure than b.net will ever be ;P that addon.. was never prone to faliure..

I think there is no concrete answer to the question.

Its like comparing Halo to Arma II - two very different games.

I personally prefer CoH because I find its fun almost all the time (unless your getting stomped in a MP match, which doesn't happen very often) whereas SC II is only fun if you are winning.

I also find SC II to be very static - everything feels calculated and there is almost no room for comebacks if you are behind.

I've found in CoH there are some ridiculous games where one team is way ahead, then the other team co-ordinates and manages to turn the tide of battle just in time.

There is also a 'aww snap, awesome' factor to CoH that is absent from SC II (like landing a direct hit with artillery, watching a group of enemy tanks drive over a bunch of mines you laid) which i think makes CoH a more exciting game to play.

I can see why many prefer SC II though.

with_teeth26

I agree entirely COH is my Favourite RTS gma ehowever they are both different i have not played SC2 but i have played the original and i found it too hard and tedious .

i Loved how the faction were different in SC1 one thing that makes me mad is when all factions are the same. However i found it too difficult and it took too long like producing units or upgrades. The gamplay machanincs were not as exciting i found you simply grow your numbers and then send massive swarms to the enimy base and kill 1 building at a time.

COH on the other hand has much more frsh and enjoyable gameplay eg its not just about swarms of enimes charging eg 6 squads of regular infantry will propably loose to 2 HMG teams .

Starcraft 2 does however have a better atmosphere then Coh being SCi-Fi rather then WW@ however in combat it felt to static simply click on the thing you want to be destoroyed and watch in COH you need to take things like cover and special abilities into acount .

The Campains for Coh were very enjoyable and realistic there is not much story this is due to its historical alegence. I am yet to play starcraft 2 campain but as far as starcraft 1s i found it a little too static and hard and as you go the enemy gets more powerful and your units are almost rendered usless

The Multiplayer for both of them was very enjoyable battle.net was easy to use and acces and COH multiplayer was also great Both of them are very hard especialy COH if you dont have the expansions. Starcraft was imposibly hard It almost feels as if you need to do this this this and this eg buld exactly 5 drons in 2 minutes or you have lost was not so enjoyable for me Coh was much easier for me it was still very hard however if you are clever and think clearly you can come back it is not just about the numbers

Final Verdict

having not yet played SC2 it is hard for me to say i will have to give it so Coh though based ton attention to detail gameplay mechanics variety and variety it also had a difficulty adjustment unlike SC (dont know about SC2 though). SC i found a bit too hard and generic it felt like it was all about the numbers.

Winner :COh