>>447964The only reason it's a real strategy game, and why MoW is not, is attributed to the fact that Company of Heroes 1 & 2 employ strategic depth beyond playing War Thunder with multiple units.
There is no real strategy in MoWAS2 gameplay beyond sweatily aiming for the ammo racks of enemy tanks as if you were playing war thunder.
It boils down to build Artillery, Tank Destroyer, and wanking off to long ranges on horrendously small maps.
CoH takes the small map premise, and lowers the ranges of everything to support the philosophy of strategic depth, and encourage the usage of multiple unit types, coordination, and combined arms tactics.
In MoWAS2, you can load any type of shell, use any non-small arms weapon, and be able to knock out anything with just about anything. Which really waters down the concept of using the right tools for any situation, and turns the game almost brainless.
The problem lies in the fact that everything comes with solutions for every problem in MoWAS2. So it boils down into hurr durr snipe tank simulator. There needs to genuinely be restrictions and checks/balances to prevent shit like Anti-Tank Guns from annihilating infantry columns. Everything is just a different caliber of gun in MoWAS2 and it really shows.
MoWAS2 suffers from migraines of terrible design decisions such as allowing everything to magically have a stockpile of every type of ammunition humanely considerable. As such it barely resembles modern 20th century tactical and strategic depth other than having the tools used during the time.
CoH1/2 locks the mary sue "my division has everything" logic behind commanders and the tech tree, and resource points. To which strategic depth is found in things like for example:
"What commander/doctrine should I go?"
"Should I go for grenade upgrade, or tanks?"
"Do I build another rifleman or a rear echelon?"
"Do I save for a Kingtiger or buy a panther?"
