Company Of Heroes Open Beta Online

By Jim Rossignol on September 3rd, 2010 at 11:45 am.


That’s the Company Of Heroes Online open beta online, you understand. As promised a while back, Relic’s free-to-play take on their popular strategy is now open to all. It has been announced in full here by Relic’s Greg Wilson, Producer of COHO. The RPS hivemind will be plugging itself into this next week, so we might have some thoughts to broadcast on it soon. But if you fancy some tactical cleverness then you can sign up on the front page link here, this very instant.

, , , .

28 Comments »

  1. CMaster says:

    I’ve had a great time playing CoH (and still am doing so) multiplayer.
    It’s available very cheaply (you can get the game + all expansions for under £10, or just the core game at £2.50 when Steam do sales).

    I really don’t see how levelling, microtransactions and “heroes” are going to make the game better.

    • Delusibeta says:

      Conveniently, Steam is having one of “those sales” right now.

    • Po0py says:

      @Delusibeta

      I actually thought it was kinda dumb given that most people will now flock to the free open beta rather than cough up for the games however cheap they may be.

  2. xxx says:

    arcade clickfest rts goes mmo, nothing to see here

    • Alexander Norris says:

      And what would be an RTS that isn’t an “arcade clickfest,” in your opinion?

    • loGi says:

      That’s weird I’d concider CoH one of the more tactical RTS’s with less emphasis on excessive clicking. Also, I’d like to know what characterizes a RTS as ‘arcade’.

    • CMaster says:

      Indeed. The use of cover, queueable actions etc makes CoH a lot less clicky I’d say then traditional RTSes like Starcraft, Supreme Commander etc where units need constant micro to be any use (not that micro can’t also make a big different to Coh).
      Except when you want a tank to retreat backwards of course, which requires a ridiculous amount of clciks for such a simple task.

    • Tei says:

      Compared to?

      Lets compare CoH to Starcraft. CoH has a cover system that use the deformable terrain. Starcraft has nothing.
      CoH has line of sight simulation for untis. Starcraft has nothing.
      CoH has a lot of deployable untis, and orders like take cover. Starcraftas has… the terrans tank.

      Starcraft is a very old game (12 years), so maybe the comparation is unfair. The best players of Starcraft are measured in “clicks per minute”. You are not going anywhere with clicks per minute in CoH (well.. but probably helps).

    • Flaringo says:

      I’d be cool if the cover system actually worked.

      I remember playing it not too long ago. I had built a line of sandbags, struggled for a minute to get my men to line up properly behind it (instead of 3 men bunched up in one corner, and 2 standing in front of the sand bag or half of them take cover behind something else in the area). I left them for 30 seconds because something else required my attention, only to come back to my men lying in a line IN FRONT of my sandbags.

    • ScubaMonster says:

      @Flaringo : well I don’t really know as I haven’t played the game, but isn’t there some sort of “Hold Position” command to keep them from moving to engage the enemy? Most other RTS games have that.

    • Raúl says:

      The game is considered arcadey because its not an autentic depiction of how a battlefield or conflict works, most games are “arcade” because they focus on the “game” part of the spectrum more than the theme where its based.

      Sometimes the term arcade its also being incorporated to heavy-action games, CoH is not that heavy most times (it can be), other games in this section could be StarCraft 2, Men of War, Supreme Commander, Unreal Tournament, Modern Warfare, etc. etc.

      Also, none of the games mentioned are “authentic simulations of their real counterparts” (like most games).

      The only strategy game wich I can say focused more on the simulation of the conflict is Battle from the Bulge (When I say simulation I’m not neccesarilly talking about stats or projectile tracking within a game), that game puts you in historically conflict that took part during World War, might not be a perfect depiction of what really happened but the game tries to make the battles as authentic as possible.

      Hope that answers your question :)

    • Ace says:

      @Flaringo Quick Tip: If you hold the right mouse button and drag in the direction you want your units to be firing from their cover they will assume the position you want them to be in. The cover system in COH is very very good and very well refined. I have never seen a game be as good as COH is at assuming men into the exact positions I want them in.

  3. loGi says:

    So what exactly is the online portion of this game? Is the gameplay identical/very similiar to the original CoH with tagged on leveling etc? No massive battles?

    • Kid A says:

      IIRC, in this you get the entire campaign from the original CoH, plus the multiplayer with all the tacked on levelling bells and whistles.
      To be honest, if you just want the multiplayer sans pay-units and levelling, now is as good a time as any to get them all of Steam. However – DO NOT BUY THE COMPLETE PACK. Buy CoH Gold (£3.49, CoH and Opposing Fronts), then get Tales of Valor on it’s own.
      Congrats, you just saved another £1.49.

    • CMaster says:

      @Kid A.
      Or alternativley, just don’t buy Tales of Valour. The campaigns are short and while taking a different tack to the others, pretty weak. The operations, with the exception of maybe Stonewall are poorly thought through and dissapointing, and you really don’t need the unlockable units.

    • Heliocentric says:

      I quite enjoyed ToV’s campaign content, but it was short. More than worth £2.50 though.

      On CoH:O I like it.

      I admit, its not really a million miles from CoH and the world would not be much poorer if it didn’t exist, but it does have a few interesting ideas, and the customisation will mean you can really choose a style, and respeccing isn’t that costly(in ingame points, not money).

  4. rocketman71 says:

    Another franchise bites the dust.

    • Tei says:

      You say that like is a bad thing.

      Franchises are a problem. Do you want to watch Rambo XXII or a totally new movie that introduce you to new characters and ideas ?

      Franchises are a artifact of “risk adverse” practices. Not taking the originality route, because franchises are a tried and proven method to milk gamers, and originality has proven to be a dificiult route and not rewarding enough.

      I hope all the Marios, Megal Gears, Maddem, Sims and the like die, and new stuff shows. But will never happends.

    • CMaster says:

      @Tei
      Indeed. Whenver I see people saying “Where’s my episode 3 Valve?” I think “I’d rather Valve do something exciting and new, like portal (although I’d like to see Valve finish what they started, admittedly)
      Whenver people bang on about Deus Ex 3, or even I point out that it doesn’t seem to quite fit as a sequel, I think that what I’d really like to see is more games [i]like[/i] Deus Ex, not more Deus Ex. I think that the key part of XCOM was the stratergy, the interaction between overworld and tactical level, the teams and equipment. I don’t think fighting Aliens was that key to the experience. I’d certainly rather see Relic embrace true-3D RTSes in a new way, rather than make Homeworld 3, etc.

  5. Jake says:

    Does it have new multiplayer maps? I could never get custom maps to work in CoH so just having extra maps to play on would be an incentive.

  6. cliffski says:

    All i want for Company Of heroes is new maps, new units and the ability o play co-op with a friend against the Ai on those new maps.
    I am happy to pay for any expansion that does that, with real proper money (not micro).
    Playing against random COH players competitively is depressing, with people using whatever exploits they can, and generally playing to win, not to have fun.
    The idea of losing against someone because they have spent more time playing and ranked up ‘hero points’ or have just paid for better units is pretty grim.
    COH is my fave game right now, but I don’t see anything here to encourage singleplayer or non l33t-competitor players like me to get involved :(

    • Kakrafoon says:

      Right. You’re so right. That’s why I don’t play competitive multiplayer against strangers – only co-op against the AI with my buddies.

    • Andrew Dunn says:

      I’ve started playing COH again after trying out the COH Online beta and hating the tagged on levelling and hero units and complete lack of balance. Since getting back to it, I’ve yet to play against anyone who I don’t know already, and we’ve been having a blast with it.

      Ultimately COH Online just isn’t as much fun as the base game. Part of that is the lack of balance, but part of it is that the flexibility is gone – you’re tied to a single doctrine, now, and don’t even get to pick your abilities on the fly in-game. Unpredictability and adapting your doctrine choice to your enemy’s actions and choices no longer figures in the gameplay at all. It’s a small thing that becomes more and more apparent over time.

  7. Kakrafoon says:

    I played CoH: Online for an hour now. Are my eyes deceiving me, or does it look a bit as if all the details were turned to “medium” compared to my dear old offline CoH? Also, 1920×1200 looks weirdly stretched,, somehow – as if widescreen wasn’t properly implemented. Otherwise it’s a nice idea, just taking a complete game and adding multiplayer reward thingies.

    • Andrew Dunn says:

      Yes, it’s inferior to normal COH, graphically. Whether that’s just the beta or not is anyone’s guess, but at the very least the DirectX 10 functionality is gone, and texture detail is pretty low.

  8. Thomas M. Hughes says:

    CoH was a masterpiece but I can’t bring myself to play a 40+ minute 1 v 1.

    • Ace says:

      Well, don’t play any RTSs other than SC2 then. I’ll be busy enjoying myself playing with people who aren’t rabidly competitive.