First Company Of Heroes 2 Trailer Sets Stage, Leaves

Do you see what you just did, World War II? Now go to your room. Go on, get!
I will forever be baffled by the trend of game trailers that opt to keep, you know, games almost entirely out of the spotlight. Next, I would like a film preview made up entirely of adorable puppy photos from this magical place and a book whose words are printed in alphabet soup instead of ink. Until then, though, I’ll have to make do with war. World War II, specifically – a sequel in which we did, in fact, war harder. Right up until near the end, Company of Heroes 2’s first official trailer is stitched together from old photos, dramatic cuts, and (admittedly jaw-dropping) statistics. It’s nice and all, but perhaps we can see a bit more of Relic’s not-too-shabby-looking game next time?

Relic’s Soviet-focused sequel won’t be out until sometime next year, so it’s at least nice to see that THQ’s already putting a lot of its withering promotional muscle behind this one. Rare is the (non-Activision-Blizzard) publisher – in this day and age – who’d bet the slowly burning farm on a PC-exclusive RTS, so fingers crossed that it pays off.

In the meantime, a semi-related thought: remember Company of Heroes Online? I wonder what would’ve happened if THQ stuck with it. Even in what’s rapidly becoming the golden age of F2P, there still isn’t a truly great RTS holding down the front lines. And boy does THQ ever need a consistent breadwinner. Now, though, all we can do is ponder the “what ifs.” And go look at puppy pictures, which is definitely what I’m about to do right now.


  1. Real Horrorshow says:

    inb4 Wehrmacht idolizers/war crime apologists/”Russians were worse!”

    • Kollega says:

      My take: smart people don’t doubt Stalin was a bad man, but you’d have to be pretty fucking stupid to think that the Wehrmacht were the good guys.

      • Real Horrorshow says:

        Unfortunately, you get that quite a bit in gaming communities centered around war games (Red Orchestra and Total War for me). A lot of these people who obsess over everything that has to do with the Wehrmacht (and even the SS) won’t be satisfied until all German combat units are viewed as innocent guys supposedly just “doing their duty” by “fighting for their country” (the Wehrmacht in its entirety being an innocent, clean, honorable fighting force is a staple of the fictional reality these people have created for themselves, and any suggestion to the contrary is met with claims of being a stupid sheep who listens to American (read: Jewish) propaganda) and the only Nazis during the entire war were Hitler’s inner circle. They’ll swear up and down that they’re not racist but only someone really naive would take their word for it after some of the things they say and think is cool.

        You try to reason with them, tell them to read a fucking book, but you never get anywhere. Wicked steam punk looking tanks, sinister helmets and weapons with black finish outweigh any common sense and facts you can muster.

        • Kollega says:

          Why, that is just sad to hear :-(

          It reminds me of this Mitchell and Webb sketch, and a quote from Himmler who said he didn’t expect the pitch-black SS uniforms to be loved by too many peole. It feels like even the Nazis themselves might have viewed themselves more realistically than the guys you are talking about.

        • Orija says:

          I fear I’m one of those assholes. To me it seems to be a matter of perspective. Had the Nazis won we’d be reading about Churchill’s holocaust in India and widespread rapes.

          • Xighor says:

            Well hello there, I’m from Poland and that means I can say a word or two about IIWW. And about this trailer which was quite schocking for me. Russia portrayed as good guys fighting for freedom of Europe? Is that some kind of joke? If it is I dont get it. ‘their sacrifice was even greater’. Of course it was, they were sending people bare handed against german troops only to make sure Germans will run out of ammo.
            My apologies for lack of humour but seeing this kind of small, but meaningful, lies makes me sick after 44 years of Russian occupation. “A lie repeated 1000 times becomes a truth.” (guess who said that :P)
            At war noone is innocent and any guy that tries to tell you different is a liar.

          • The Godzilla Hunter says:

            Winners may write history, but that does not mean that certain sides in history were not worse than others. The Nazis killed way more civilians and committed more war crimes than the British. To think otherwise would be wrong and ignorant.

          • lurkalisk says:

            Xighor, like it or not, the Soviet Union was the one greatest obstacle to a totalitarian, racist regime in the region. Don’t like it? Well too fucking bad, it turns out 11 time zones of Stalin sort of trumps good AND evil. Poland had an absolutely terrible run of luck, but what it had to deal with in the end was the better of two evils.

          • SominiTheCommenter says:

            That statement is the winner of this year’s Most Ironic Comment Award.

          • wengart says:

            Actually the modern view of Germany and specifically the Wehrmacht has a lot of history behind it. After the war their was a move by West Germany and the U.S. to paint the Wehrmacht in a positive light for a couple different reasons.

            Germany coming out of the war was looking for something to be proud of and whitewashed many of the atrocities of the Wehrmacht and put them on the SS. The Wehrmacht became the force that bravely stood up against the Soviets, British, and U.S. even as they became increasingly outmanned and outgunned.

            The U.S. had a hand in also backing up these claims. With the advent of the Cold War it became west against east and the Wehrmacht was painted in positive light once again. As the well trained, well armed, technologically advanced army that was dragged down by hordes of Russians charging in with and without weapons. Oddly enough this corresponded with the U.S. situation should war break out in Europe.

            Also I would like to clarify that the Russians did not throw men into German fire without weapons. Yes there were desperate attacks and penal battalions, but men were not unequipped when they went into battle and the NKVD machine gun posts at the rear of units was also a rarity. By 1944 the Red Army was thoroughly modern and skilled at fighting.

        • mouton says:

          But the Nazis were fun and cool. It’s just that they were mass murderers like most other fun and cool people across the history. That’s simply how humanity is.

          I see no problem with fascination with evil, as long as it remains a fantasy. We fantasize about murder and genocide every day in computer games, after all.

          • Corrupt_Tiki says:

            You’re implying we shouldn’t carry out said fantasies?
            Oh ..
            Excuse me, I need to .. err, clean out my shed, and various powertools.

        • Iskariot says:

          Of course the Wehrmacht and SS were not the innocent guys, just like the American and British army were not the innocent guys. We who kill, because we are ordered to kill, are never innocent. Just forget about all the heroic bullshit in movies and books about righteous killing. It are all lies and propaganda.

        • Gaytard Fondue says:

          Believe or not, but most German soldiers were innocent. My Grandfather hated the Nazis, he still had to fight for them though.

      • lurkalisk says:

        BUT the Wehrmacht certainly weren’t the bad guys, unless you would consider the average military recruit (US/UK) to be such (Dumb fools? Yes. Bad guys? Not quite). Fighting for your country hasn’t been a justifiable thing for a long time, for most countries. As a matter of fact, I’ve never met a military potential who had any other aspiration than simply to kill someone.

        Point is, the Wehrmacht was no measurably worse than the US army (that is, quite bad, but not exactly a villain).

        • Triglav says:

          How many Axis civillians did US army line up and shoot? Hang? Burn alive in village town halls or churches?

          Carrying out such orders without any moral qualms, as Germans did (and by far not only SS), was practically unheard of in Allied armies. Even Soviet rapes and murders weren’t ordered or doctrinal, but a gigantic excess, and were in many cases persecuted by Soviets themselves (via penal battalions and outright executions of own soldiers who committed crimes).

          • Doth Messar says:

            I’m sure not many German/Italian troops but they sure did a lot of that to the Japanese. Let’s not forget the US’s war of race in the pacific. (Anyone who disputes this take a look at “Dower’s War without Mercy” (link to

            Not to mention the US bombing campaigns on Japanese civilians.

            Sooooo yeah the US’s hands certainly weren’t clean.

      • Werthead says:

        The Wehrmacht were certainly culpable in the German regime’s war crimes. Whilst some senior generals tried to hold themselves aloof from the Nazi ideology (such as Guderian, although his memoir has to be swallowed with more than a pinch of salt), many threw themselves into it with abandon. Von Reichenau’s delight in ordering the regular troops of the 6th Army to kill Jews on sight in Russia was notable, and his troops carried out those orders with enthusiasm. Atrocities on a large scale were frequently carried out by regular Wehrmacht troops, not just the SS.

    • Bleekill says:

      Germany was held responsible for almost twice as many non-combatant killings as Russia sure, but have you heard of “The Rape of Berlin” ? The Red Army was pretty evil as well. Everybody is evil in war really but Germany and Russia really brought out the beast in each other. Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin is a really good read to grasp the situation.

      • Triglav says:

        “Germany was held responsible for almost twice as many non-combatant killings as Russia sure, but have you heard of “The Rape of Berlin” ?”

        Ahem. Almost twice?

        Germans & their helpers in Europe killed: 12-15 million Soviet civillians + 5,5 million Polish civillians + 1,5 million Yugoslav civillians + another 1 million combined of others (Greeks, Dutch, etc) + all the Jews of Europe not already included in the national stats above (probably another 2 million there) = 20-25 million dead civilians (…and noone counted the rapes)

        Germany suffered: 1-3 million dead civillians (from Soviet and Western allies combined), and 100-200K raped women,

        Italy suffered: 155K dead civilians (from Axis and Allies)

        So, my good man, we’re talking almost 10:1 here, not “almost twice as many”, which pretty much places Germany at the deepest low of all lows when it comes to murder. But comparing a rape of 200K (while tragic in its own way and a great stain on Soviet reputation) to murder of 20 million is hardly serious.

        • Premium User Badge

          FhnuZoag says:

          An often forgotten factor too is that the Soviets succeeded in their war goals, while the Nazis failed. You need to keep in account that the Germans ‘only’ killed 20 million+ people because they were stopped from carrying out even a fraction of what they had planned for Eastern Europe (look up Generalplan Ost), let alone what they would have done subsequently if they wrested control of India from the British, or full control of Africa, and so on… Somehow I doubt we’d be talking about the Churchill’s holocaust in India, if India never received independence, and the Nazis were continuing to rape, pillage and genocide it for decades onwards.

        • wengart says:

          The Soviet Union actually kiled more people than the Germans did, although the Germans killed many more (IIRC) during the period of the war (39-45). Soviet atrocities started in the 20s and continued well into the late 40s. Look up the Holodromor, within a year the Soviets starved 5 million of their own citizens in the Ukraine. they also played their part in Poland.

          • Triglav says:

            It’s good how you start with “Actually” then offer no proof for anything…see what FhnuZoag wrote above…

    • derf says:

      Interesting subject.

      I posed a simple question in the Men Of War Assault Squad forums: “why is there so much German-centric mod content?”

      It got locked in a couple of days.

      link to

      • Bleekill says:

        I can answer for you. Because German weapons, aircraft and armor are fucking badass. It seems like they were superior with most of their military hardware except long range bombers maybe. They were fighting a war on a lot of fronts pretty effectively too. I’m not one of the Wehrmacht fanboys either, I’m interested in all sides of WW2 and try to look at them unbaised. Everybody did horrible things, moral high ground is non-existent in war. Everybody is guilty of murdering civilians, whether it be the Japanese slaughtering Chinese and Philipinos or the U.S. and Britain firebombing cities.

        • derf says:

          But someone in the thread I started replied:

          “It’s because of the “Wehrmachtmania”,it made everyone think that WW2 Germany had the perfect military,mostly from propaganda. But in reality,Germany wasn’t able to maintain all that technology,and then Berlin fell. I have a 32 page article solely proving why it wasn’t so “perfect” and why people started thinking it was.”

          • Bleekill says:

            I read the whole thread. What I’m saying is far from “Werhmactmania”. I know a lot about all sides of the conflict when it comes to aircraft, tanks and guns. Germany was very advanced in all aspects of their military and we are lucky that Hitler was a dumbass and tried to attack everybody at once.

          • Real Horrorshow says:

            That someone was correct. They did have good stuff but a lot of it was smoke and mirrors. France had better tanks in the Battle of France. T-34 and KV-1 were light years ahead of anything the Germans could muster in the early Russian war. The G43 was a copy of the SVT-40. The technological advances of WW2 were mostly a series of responses to responses to responses. German up-guns Panzer IV and creates Panther and Tiger to deal with the T-34 and KV, Russia creates IS-2, Germany creates Tiger II, Russia creates IS-3, etc.

            Germany owes her early success to blitzing tiny countries whose sole preoccupation wasn’t war (you need to remember that even France had half the population and was a much more rural country) and to Soviet incompetance in the wake of the purges and Stalin’s unwillingness to accept warnings of an imminent attack. NOT due to some gigantic technological advantage they had over the Soviets or any of their other enemies. People forget that Germany invaded Russia with millions of horses. Only of a fraction of their armored divisions were fully motorized and sporting the latest gear. The United States and Britian were more advanced than Germany ever dreamed of being.

            The only arena where Germany was clearly ahead of its time is rocket and jet technology, which never ended up playing much of a role in the war anyway.

            As to some other points…no country can claim to be clean in a war, but in some wars, especially WW2, some guys clearly hold the moral low ground. Germany waged a war of extermination against all Slavic people, fucking War of the Worlds style. The Soviets did not do likewise. Japan waged a war of extermination on China. The United States did not do likewise (and, controversial as it was, opted to drop nukes instead of being forced to by invading that island of fanatics). The things the axis powers did are orders of magnitude more terrifying than what the allied powers did.

          • Bleekill says:

            I never said it was a gigantic lead in technology. The U.S. and Britain had to struggle to match the quality of German units and most of the time had to use superior numbers to win. They were not “more advanced than Germany had ever dreamed of being.” The Bf-109s had better flight ceilings, armor AND armorment than any U.S. or British fighter for one example. Germany threw most of it’s best units at Russia. Germany lost 80% of it’s casualties to Russia also.

            The MG-42, STG-44, Bf-109, Tiger I, Heavy Artillery/Railroad Guns and V2 Rockets are some of the most iconic and infamous units in WWII for a reason. German weaponry was pretty influential after the war. The U.S. copied the MG-42, V2/Jet technology, Russia built the AK from the STG. I don’t think it’s “Wehrmachtmania”.

            I think Germany had better quality armor and infantry units on the ground, as well as artillery when you put them vs British and U.S. forces. They couldn’t win against both the RAF and the USAF though and that’s what really helped dislodge the ground forces.

            Obviously Germany is in the moral low ground but I’m focused on the units, I don’t care about morals. I was just trying to help derf off his high horse a little bit.

          • Corrupt_Tiki says:

            Tiger tanks still look badass.
            Their early war fighter planes were better too afaik. (The japanese ones being the best, I think.)
            But as for moral high ground/low ground;
            link to

            I like to believe not all German soldiers were criminals (more or less systematic brainwashing?). Just how I like to believe, not all US soldiers urinate on dead enemies. And maybe not all terrorists/criminals are quite as evil as portrayed.

          • derf says:

            Could you explain how i’m on a high horse please? Yet again, the question has touched a nerve.

            However, I think I’ve figured it out where all this “wehrmachmania” comes from. It’s some form of appreciation from the fact that in most (if not, all) “areas” of warfare, Germany had at least one apparently superior or competitive weapon “in use”, unlike any other single nation in the war. I say “in use” because apparently stuff like the STG-44 and Tiger tank were so limited in numbers, they had very limited / no impact on the war.

            I’m sure these people would be Commonwealth fanboys if the Brits were the ones who sported kit like the Germans.

            It’s possibly something only attributed to gamers because it means as Germany, they get to use “fucking badass” toys. Personally, when I play Men Of War and I realise that all my soldiers are dual-wielding STG-44’s and MG42’s, and are backed up with nothing but Tiger tanks and PaK 40’s, I say to myself “Ok… this looks a bit silly. Why don’t I just use a cheat to spawn fifty IS-3’s led by Gandalf the Grey and roll into Berlin?”

        • Zakski says:

          Most of their technology was not superior, its just their initial tactics were. The germans had people like Guderian developing armoured doctrine, while the British were insisting tanks were like ships ><.

        • Werthead says:

          “It seems like they were superior with most of their military hardware except long range bombers maybe.”

          Well, and tanks of course. Russia had better tanks throughout the war (they just didn’t start using them properly until the very end of 1941). France also had better tanks at the start of the war, but again did not deploy them effectively and were completely out-fought. British tanks were also not to be sniffed at (the Firefly Sherman so scaring the German high command that they ordered them destroyed on sight, with the Brits painting the longer turrets white to try to disguise them as ordinary Shermans).

          The Germans had some of the best infantry weapons, the best artillery pieces, the best rockets and, for a significant part of the war, the best submarines, but otherwise their technological superiority was both overblown and impractical. The Tigers, Pathers and King Tigers were cool designs, but were flawed in that they didn’t work properly. Battlefield-reliable Panthers were not deployed until after D-Day, by which time it was too late. The King Tiger could barely operate off roads without immediately bogging down in the mud (and frequently cracked the roads it drove over). Their aircraft were genuinely awesome at the start of the war, but so over-engineered that in the time and cost it took to build a squadron, the Brits could build two squadrons of Spitfires and Hurricanes (which were inferior but not decisively so).

    • Zakski says:

      War Crime apologists? really? that is such a trolling comment. Any war crime is a serious offence.

      As for the russians being worse, they were, simply by the fact that up until just over 20 years ago, the USSR still existed. The stazi/kgb disappeared thousands of people. They shipped any of their men who were captured to siberia/used them as forced labour/put them in penal battalions to be human mine detectors.

      That doesn’t excuse what the nazis did in any way however.

      you come across as slightly rabid

      • gladi says:

        Zakski- I assure that of the relations I have, even those who were forced into labour camps by the commies, prefer the forty-one years of Bolshevik dictatorship over the six years of Nazi ocupation.

        On the matter of the actual game, I sure they release comprehensive demo. I was pants at the original CoH and could just look sadly as AI on any increased difficulty completely demolished me.

        • Zakski says:

          As true as that may be, the statistics don’t lie, the soviets killed more people, that does not make the nazis any better than them though.

          • Triglav says:

            Which statistics would that be?
            The ones that blame Stalin for all the Russian WW2 dead and Mao for all the WW2 Chinese dead?
            I’ve seen those and, well, any serious historian would hardly waste time even reading them…

          • gladi says:

            *sarcasm If it is that simple then most evil people are Christians. Just Taiping Heavenly Kingdom puts them almost on parity with the nazis and that is just the latest atrocity.

        • Xighor says:

          Yeah. During German ocupation we were eating only bread [with nothing on] and things like beatroot jam [really] and during Russian occupation we could eat potatos and meat [once a week top], so Russians are better. :) “even those who were forced into labour camps by the commies” Russians were clever. They were killing intelligent men, to chop off the head of any nation and steer them as they please.
          You all guys are talking about two sides of the same coin ( link to )

      • Triglav says:

        The communist totalitarianism was oppressive in nature, but its goals were never genocidal like the nazi/nationalistic goals usually are.

        Communists wanted to turn everyone into communists and killed those that opposed them or those they percieved as opposing them.

        Nazis wanted to be a master race, ruling some, exterminating others completely, whether they opposed them or not.

        Not comparable. Why naziism crumbled in a decade, because EVERYONE except the nazis hated it, while communism lasted 40 years and crumbled when enough of its own people hated it.

        • Zakski says:

          wikipedia article talking about the attempt to systematically wipe out the cossacks becuase they were overwhelming supportive of the white russians link to Whether or not the people opposed them, both sides did commit genocide.

          If everyone hated the nazis, why did they have a friendly relationship with argentina and why did finland, a democratic country ally with them?

          both sides heavily indoctrinated people and both sides removed anyone anyone who spoke out against them. the only reason it didn’t take the nazis 40 years to collapse was that britain and france suddenly developed a backbone over poland and the nazis made questionable strategic decisions.

          they are very comparable by the brutal nature of both regimes.

          • Triglav says:

            You’re totally oversimplyfing, taking things out of context and generally pushing a revisionist agenda.
            People like that are usually so convinced they’re right, no amount of counter-information will make them change their mind.

            I’m neither pro commie or pro nazi, but arguing you would force me into a pro commie stance, which I’m not willing to do, so I’m withdrawing :)

          • Zakski says:

            I am oversimplfying? you were the one making gross exagerations about everyone hating the nazis.

            How am I pushing a revisionist agenda? that is just a straw man argument. Both sides killed millions of people and would have continued to do so, if they had not both been toppled.

            The fact is simply that both regimes systematically killed millions of people. implying that they didn’t is simply wrong, implying that they exclusively killed people who deserved it is very wrong. Both the nazis and communists were brutal regimes, they murdered people before wwii, during wwii and after too (the nazis would had continued to murder people if they were not stopped, the soviets actually did murder tons of people)

          • Triglav says:

            Ok, I take that back.
            You obviously don’t hate the nazis and would probably argue that even Hitler’s rise to power was the communists’ fault, since “cleansing Germany of communists” was hist first agenda.

            Nowhere did I imply communists only killed people that deserved it. I clearly wrote they killed anyone who they perceived as a threat. Which in the vast majority of cases were innocent people.

            But unlike naziism, communism’s general idea was a positive one. It envisioned good life for everyone, particularly the working class. Because it was inevitably abused by psychos and dictators (because it is a totalitarian system, therefore easy to abuse this way) it became hated and eventually rejected and overthrown by its own people (because it treated them as badly as everyone else in the end).

            Naziism was genocidal from the start. It only envisioned good life for the master race. The handicapped, gays, political opposition were first to go. Then all “lower races”. All Slavs were to become slaves. It would not be overthrown from within, because it empowered the chosen master race, which embraced it. It had to be destroyed from outside by a coalition of everyone else, even binding together ideological counterparts capitalists+communists.

            So no. You can’t compare both just by counting the number of human rights violations, but by their essence.

          • Triglav says:

            Oh and sorry. Should have put a smiley after that first sentence, so you’d not think I’m flaming you. :)
            Just being a bit sarcastic.

          • Kaira- says:

            > why did finland, a democratic country ally with them?

            You can bet your ass that this is still hotly debated around here. In fact, even the subject of whether we were allied with Nazis or just co-operating alongside them with common targets is debated.

            The thing is, Finland was barely able to hold out against USSR during The Winter War. During Winter War the biggest help Finland got was Swedish volunteers. The Winter War resulted in Finland losing large areas of land (including access to Barents Sea and one of the most important metal mining areas in Northern Europe when it came to making bullets). So, after Winter War it was pretty obvious that next time we might not be that lucky, as evidenced by Baltic states, who fell under Soviet occupation.

            So, where to get allies then? By mid 1940s, Finland and Sweden were completely encircled by two totalitarian states, Germany and USSR. After Soviets imposed new demands on Finland it was quite obvious that there would be a war in sight, and the only allies against USSR would be Sweden (highly unlikely, seeing how they had remained neutral before and had sold steel to Germany) and Germany. So, obviously the only ally here would be Germany.

            Hope that explains a bit.

          • wengart says:

            Triglav, murdering people isn’t less bad just because I believe I am saving their eternal soul by doing so.

            Nor is committing genocide on scales never before seen not that bad because we originally meant to share everything.

          • Triglav says:

            Sure wengart, only that communists didn’t commit genocide. They didn’t eradicate any nation, any “genus”, just cause it didn’t fit their racial grand plan. Even Holodomor is a highly debated topic, whether it was directed at all, or just something gone horribly wrong.

    • mouton says:

      I thought this community had long transcended the arbitrary ideas of “good” and “evil”.

    • Solomon Grundy says:

      Why do all these games have to be about “heroes?” I grew up reading WWII memoires, playing Avalon Hill WWII boargames, and it was never all about “heroes…” I think it’s the insistence that there has to be good and a bad side. I feel like the heroes-thing is very post-911 for whatever reason.

      • RakeShark says:

        Nah, the world tried a war without “heroes” once. It wasn’t very good and everyone went back home to reassess the problem. They couldn’t remember a single person from it, and so went back to the “hero” formula.

        Seriously though, for all my war studies, I can’t remember a single notable figure from WWI during the actual war that isn’t fictitious, wasn’t actually fighting/in the armies, or was only notable pre/post-war.

  2. Kollega says:

    As a Russian, i take no pride in what is called “the Great Patriotic War”. It was bloody awful – something people had to take part in, not something they’d want to take part in. I hope the game reflects the utter bleakness, grimness, and darkness of the Eastern Front to the best of it’s ability.

    I guess i’m just tired of how people over here are all “RAH RAH OCCUPY REICHSTAG!” on May 9th instead of somberly reflecting on just how terrible the war was.

    • Ultra Superior says:

      Let’s drink vodka to that, comrade!

      • Kollega says:

        Dude, not funny. At least not as funny as it could’ve been in a lighter context. The Nazi invasion and Stalin’s response to it is a huge honking red stain on the history of my country and humanity as a whole. It killed tens of millions of innocent people and a few million of not-so-innocent people (i.e. SS guys, NKVD guys, criminals in penal batallions…). And on top of that, it turned both sides into rabid animals, or something even worse, thirsting for blood of the other side and wishing nothing but their complete eradication. That’s the kind of consequences George Orwell warned us about.

        Maybe i’m just appearing as no-fun-at-all-pants, but i just want people to pay some respect to World War 2 for once. It can’t be all fun and games if we want to learn any kind of lessons from it.

        • The Godzilla Hunter says:

          I think he was agreeing with you. 90% sure, but I could be wrong.

          • Kollega says:

            And i thought it was just a joke without rhyme or reason. If it isn’t, sorry – my bad.

        • Triglav says:

          While I agree with you on the blood and filth of WW2 (and all wars) in general, I’d disagree on the fun and games bit.

          I believe it is just because we get to play all these games andf watch entertaining films, that many actually take a closer look at what it was all about, study a bit more and in general gain a deeper appreciation of what was happening then.

          Ever noticed how Braveheart managed to put Scotland and claymores into most every medieval game since? How Enemy At The Gates helped a spike of Stalingrad-related mods and game scenarios? Etc, etc.

          Sombre school lessons of bare facts are a sure way to make everyone hate a subject ad forget it asap. As irreverent as it may sound, it is just the pop-culture outlets that are giving historical subjects a boost.

          Now, if there was a mechanism in games to make people value life more… (maybe Format C:\ everytime you lose a game/life).

          • Kollega says:

            I see your point, and i do actually agree with it. :P I think “fun and games” was a poor choice of words, given that we’re talking about a video game here, but i didn’t see it back when i typed it.

            My point was that we shouldn’t trivialize the subject by making vodka jokes. Just this once. I actually do like vodka jokes, but not this time.

          • mouton says:

            This is true, silly pop culture makes us, in the end, look at things closely. But the less it distorts the subject, the better.

  3. RPSRSVP says:

    I remain hopeful that from a high velocity collision between hard copies of COH2 and MOW a game would emerge that seamlessly combines their best features…

  4. Frosty840 says:

    InB4 CoH2 turns out to be a commercial release of the Eastern Front mod, but you have to re-purchase the two sides from CoH.

    • Derppy says:

      I’d still throw money at it. In my opinion COH is the best RTS game ever created.

      Besides, they have announced a bunch of new features, such as the TrueSight-system, where units have a proper line of sight, instead of a simple radius that reveals units from the fog of war.

      It should add even more depth to the combat, which was already fantastic in the original COD. I love how you could kill a ton of enemy units with just a few squads if you placed them well and used the abilities right. The TrueSight should add great potential for ambushing and flanking the enemy troops.

  5. Calneon says:

    Company Of Heroes is my favorite game ever, and I can’t wait for CoH2, but this teaser was just appalling! I wish people would stop calling these things trailers because they just aren’t. It says nothing about the game (OK apart from the setting), and is probably made by a completely separate team than the one that is making the game.

  6. Brashen says:

    Lame trailer…….

  7. Gentlemoth says:

    Well, they’re right about one thing – most people forget, or are outright ignorant to the massive war and sacrifice the Russian people made to defend their homeland, and bringing the Third Reich to their knees.

  8. Moni says:

    War, World War Two never changes, because it is history, it’s already happened.

  9. Sweedums says:

    0:24 bottom right hand corner of the screen, one of the germans has been sliced in half. Yay for poorly placed 2D assets in 3D animation!

  10. VeliV says:

    I hate how people think that who was the bad guy or who was the good quy is the most important thing and justifies everything. It’s not a pissing competition about numbers, it’s actualy human lives we are talking about and each of those lives deserve to be treated as a more than just statistics. More than just a statistics to sell a video game.

    Killing someone is killing someone, rape is rape. The fact that one side did amount X number of these things and other side did amount Y number doesn’t change the fact that that both X and Y should have never happened and the actual persons who commited and ordered these things were all “bad”.

    • Zakski says:


    • Triglav says:

      So when someone attacks, yer supposed to be decent and say “I’m not having any of this” and step aside politely? Come on…

      After what they’ve done to the world in the war THEY started, Germans should be greateful they weren’t completely annihilated after they lost it. Like Carthage was for instance…

      • Zakski says:

        no you defend yourself.

        “Germans should be greateful they weren’t completely annihilated after they lost it.” – how would this make us any better than those who engineered the holocaust?

        • Triglav says:

          Well…”we” were better, because we didn’t do it, did we?

          If we’d just stick to the biblical eye for an eye, something like 20 million Germans ough be killed outright. For the equilibrium. If we counted percentages of population killed, and added that up (Poland lost 16% population, Russia 14%, Yugoslavia 11% and others good bits too) about half of Germans would have to disappear in order to balance things.

          All these nations irretrieveably lost huge chunks of their populations. There would probably be as many Poles as Germans today, instead there’s about 20 million less.

          But after we won we were all just “Yea, that’s fine dudes. Carry on as if nothing’s happened. We’re cool.” Basically “liberated” Germany from the nazis and no real harm done.

          Which is fine, if we want to be civilised and sensible. But why all sorts of revisionism and “Allies were just as bad” and (which really reads “Well, the rape victim bit and scratched the rapist too”) is all that much more appalling.

          • Terragot says:

            by your logic; your house should succumb to a missile strike, day in, day out for several weeks because of what your countries leaders descisions and military actions do to other countrys.

          • Triglav says:

            Ain’t the leaders that do it.
            Leaders are nothing without those they lead.
            And if those willingly and eagerly carry out their leaders’ agenda of genocide, how are they suddenly innocent when the leaders are toppled?

          • abraxas says:

            As a German I’m greatly offended by your clearly uninformed bullshit spouting. While I don’t deny that what happened in WW2 was horrible and that, indeed, Germany did the most horrible things of them all, saying things like “Germans should be grateful they weren’t completely annihilated after they lost it” shows that you are a buffoon to put it lightly.

            How, exactly, is that even remotely a good or justified thing to say? I’m not even gonna dignify this with more of a response than that because it already shows what a jackass you are. And to claim that Germany got off scott free “as if nothing happened” is either proof of you being absolutely ignorant or shows that you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about and are, in fact, an idiot.

            In case you hadn’t noticed it yet, we’re STILL paying reparations to a LOT of people, despite WW2 happening more than 60 years ago (not even my grandma, who is dead by now, was really old enough to understand or participate in WW2 in any way). I’m not saying us paying reparations is wrong or right, but saying “oh yeah and then we were just like dudes, it’s all cool! Carry on as if nothing happened” is simply wrong.

            And also, and I find it hard to believe that you don’t know this, Germany was “occupied” for a very long time and split up into four different sectors, with people being deported from East to West Germany just because “Why not? You guys lost after all!”. To quote Wikipedia: “Many of the ethnic Germans, who were primarily women and children, and especially those under the control of Polish and Czechoslovakian authorities, were severely mistreated before they were ultimately deported to Germany during the 1950s”. If you call that “letting us go and act as if nothing happened” you’re delusional. Not to mention that Germany wasn’t even reunited until 1989 after the eastern occupants left it a fucked up mess.

            I advise you to read, at the very least, this part of a (very informative and hopefully, for you, educational) Wikipedia article here: link to

            In conclusion, STFU, you’re spewing bullshit and have no idea what you’re talking about.

          • Laiko says:

            Now compare that to the amount of death and misery that Germany brought upon europe with the second world war.

          • Triglav says:

            Cool, very indicative that the first one to resort to serious name-calling here is in fact a German. Hit a nerve did we?

            Do tell me…how is murdering 25million civillians, and starting a war that devastated Europe and left another few dozen million soldiers dead, comparable with the meager reparations (yes, even my grandmother who enjoyed concentration camp hospitality for 2 years is receiving additional €50 to her pension each month in reparations, which is terribly generous, isn’t it), being “occupied” for 40 years and being left in a bit of a mess? Do tell me. How is it comparable?

            So, yes, I insist. Germany SHOULD be extremely thankful it wasn’t treated by the victors the way it treated defeated nations itself. Civilisation did prevail after all and even those worst offended, didn’t carry out revenge the way they could…

          • Brun says:


            The reason that the Allies did not pursue “revenge” against Germany is because they had already tried that after World War I and the punitive restrictions and reparations they imposed then were ultimately the driving (political) factor behind Germany’s instigation of World War II. The world had learned that such vengeance accomplished nothing and was more dangerous than the alternatives. That, and they needed Germany on their side after the war as an axis against the Soviets in Europe – same with the Japanese in the Pacific.

          • Droopy The Dog says:

            Hah! Yeah, saying something ridiculous like “You should be grateful we didn’t kill at least one of your grandparents because of their nationality” isn’t at all insulting right? Nor would it comparable to the exact same acts you’re villifying the germans for. How could he possibly respond with something as vulgar as calling you a buffoon? He should be “greateful” [sic].

            Stop treating entire countries like a single entity, you didn’t call for the guilty persons to be harshly punished, the only qualifying condition you set out is that they’re German. If you can’t see the parallel between that and the atrocities of WW2, you’re just not equipped for a moral debate on the matter. If you can, then pots calling kettles, glass houses and stones etc. are generally considered bad form.

            Now, as for the smirking “Look, the dirty German said I’m stupid because they’re mean to everyone” (xenophobia ho!).

            I’m British, you’re a fuckwit. Voilà, a whole other nationality for you to stereotype.

          • Triglav says:

            A fuckwit I may well be, Droopy, but for other reasons, and you being a Brit doesn’t make it entirely odd you’d be spewing insults either (ask the Irish how they feel about being conquered a.k.a. unless you were brutally conquered yourself, how do you know what it’s like a.k.a. you should be a bit more careful in giving lessons in morality), but no matter… none of that clears you of completely misreading what I wrote. Your re-imagining of what I wrote and introducing a “dirty German” to the discussion was also uncalled for and definitely none of that came from me. What I will admit to is only that, being English is not my native tongue, I may at times fail to present a point in a clear enough manner, and thus give selective readers like yourself material for manipulating my words.

            I never wrote Germany SHOULD be punished, did I? Nor do I feel it should be. But that it should be thankful it wasn’t. At least not in an eye for an eye manner.

            Anyone they conquered was entirely at their mercy and there was precious little of it. On the other hand, once Germany was conquered it was treated rather humanely, the whole nation WAS NOT labelled as nazis by default (like the Slav nations they conquered were labelled slaves right away).

            Why I also wrote that civilisation prevailed. The particular grandparent I mentioned up there never wanted or required any revenge even after all she’s suffered through.

            What my whole post was directed against revisionism or relativising which seems to be so popular here. As in “nazis were bad but so were the Russians and Allies”. Putting the cart before the horse and all that, present in practicaly every WW2-related debate. And now there’s tons of revisionism and finger-pointing at “dirty Allies”, to borrow your phrase, coming particularly from Germany nowadays, why my knee jerked when a German flew off his handle and started calling me names. Nothing to do with national stereotypes, as you clearly prove selective reading and relativism knows no borders.

            Fact is they started a huge mess. Fact is in spite of starting a huge mess, they got out of it relatively well, compared to some of their more unfortunate victims that lost up to 16% of their population…

            And it is specifically for this reason that I find it insulting whenever I see revisionism or relativism. And it is exactly to illustrate how wrong it is that I wrote this. had Soviets and Allies been like the relativists portray them, they WOULD have burned Germany to the ground and enslaved everyone (it is rumoured some generals like Eisenhower were even considering something such).

            So how exactly am I insulting any German by stating they got out relatively well and should be thankful the offended parties didn’t take revenge they could have, considering they had them beat and occupied? Not only was no doctrinal revenge carried out, but the occupiers even rebuilt Germany and helped it get on its track again. Civilisation did prevail, as I said and revisionists should keep this in mind and be thankful and think twice before saying “nazis were bad, but so were the Soviets and Allies”.

            WW1 did not experience genocide on a massive scale. It was still a war of soldiers. And Germany was punished after the war, but not incapacitated. WW2 however, changed the game completely, with massive exterminations of population, levelling whole cities, atomic bombs, etc. Like Germans went methodically about destroying Poland as a nation (shooting all intellectuals, beheading the country of all leadership/intelectual potential, destroying archives, even burning down Warsaw street by street after the uprising and murdering tens of thousands of civillians out of hand), had the eastern and western Allies been as uncivilised as the revisionists like to portray them, who would stop them if they set on destroying Germany in a similar manner?

          • Droopy The Dog says:

            Telling someone they should be thankful you didn’t kill them is inherently insulting. You’re implying they don’t deserve their very life but you’re doing them a favour and letting them keep it, that’s both demeaning and condecending. You don’t get thanks for just not being evil, that’s the kind of thinking that leads to atrocities in the first place.

            Terrible things were done in WW2, but they were done by people not countries, a large amount of them were performed by German people and if you’d made a case that not enough effort was put into punishing those responsible I’d be inclined to agree. Instead you’re saying everyone within 300km/squared area of those responsible owe the rest of the world a favour. You said yourself that not everyone in Germany was declared a Nazi, yet you insist on saying Germans got off lightly, not Nazis.

            It’s true, I’ve not been brutally conquered. Of course I’m not 300 years old so I don’t remember brutally conquering ireland either. Thankfully I and my Irish friends can differentiate between people and countries so we bear no personal ill-will towards each other. Heck, unless you’re far older than the avarage readership, odds are you have no more personal experience of being invaded than I anyway, yet you feel equipped to weigh in on the matter.

            The practice of anthropomorphising countries and reducing their inhabitants to a reflection of events they had no hand in worried me. Coupled with a consistent lack of past tense when saying Germans should be thankful, it’s disturbingly close to nationalist/racist rhetoric. I now realise the present tense could simply be a mistake on account of english not being your first language but I’m afraid when the rest of your post was reasonably eloquent the possibility didn’t occur to me and I assumed the worst, so made sure to make my insult worse and my nationality clear to see what response I got. (A comment about invading Ireland no less! Not actually my favorite pastime…)

            None the less, the fact that some Germans committed atrocities doesn’t mean drawing attention to atrocities committed against German civillians is “revisionist” at all. It’s a cringeworthy cliché but two wrongs don’t make a right is a pretty easy metric to work with. Covering up Axis warcrimes would be wrong, likewise so should glossing over Allied injustices.

          • Triglav says:

            Oh good. Back to argumented debate without namecalling. Glad to see it.

            1. Why no past tense, no language failure here. But because this revisionsims is taking place NOW. See comments here. As soon as the game trailer said “great Russian sacrifice, etc, etc” some came up with “but what about mass rapes” and “but allies killed more people than Germans”. And that incredibly irks me. It oddly appears as if Germans (not nazis, as not all Germans were in the nazi party) murdered (or created conditions for death of) a few dozen million people between 1939 and 1945 because of (anticipating) the 1945 rapes? Therefore, the point that they allowed them to get away with relatively mild consequences compared to their murder sprees is clearly not hammered home strongly enough now, to this generation, if it is able to produce revisionists and relativists so easily.

            2. On antropomorphising countries. I said in a comment before. “And if those willingly and eagerly carry out their leaders’ agenda of genocide, how are they suddenly innocent when the leaders are toppled?” All individual guilt says modern law, right? So Nurenburg trials made it all alright by hanging a couple top nazis. And the whole nation that worked and fought for the nazi agenda is immediately absolved. Yet this does not bring the 25 million people less (and millions of their non-existing offspring) back into existence, and comparatively gives a modern Germany today a population advantage vs. say Poland and other eastern nations where the Germans did their butchery (a point several times argued in European politics already, during population=vote power debates). It’s a can of worms I perhaps shouldn’t have opened, but that doesn’t mean the issue isn’t out there and debated at higher levels too…

            3. On conquering. I have been present during an attempt, yes, but that’s beside the point. I mentioned Ireland, because even among many young Irish historic frustration of having been conquered is still there. As is among many young people of other conquered nations that feel injustices to them have never been righted. My intention wasn’t to return an insult to you, because that can be much easier done by just, well, using direct insults. It was rather to point out that being from a nation that itself has an imperial (conquering) past, and thus being in the same power range with the likes of Germany, in spite having fought it, you may lack the sensitivity of empathising with the immense frustrations of those who have been conquered, mass murdered, some losing as many as every seventh or tenth person, had their culture trampled, etc, yet are today being dismissed with “yeah but everyone did terrible things”, or often in the case of Russia even “but Russians were even worse”, when in fact…and that was the point of my initial comment on “being thankful”…after the whole mess, massive revenge WAS NOT taken against the initial perpetrators.

            Apparently the gentlemanly “dont’ mention the war” isn’t really helping…

          • Droopy The Dog says:

            So present day revisionism a handful of people justifies a present day slaughter of Germans? Ref – “If we’d just stick to the biblical eye for an eye, something like 20 million Germans ough be killed outright.”. That’s why I hope you meant to put a past tense in there somewhere.

            Aside from the occasional bit of false information being spread I think it’s foolish treat revisionism like a dirty word. The only kind of revision to history that comes from disseminating factually correct information is the positive kind.

            Historic frustration in the youth with a conquerer from long before their time, it certainly exists, but is it justified? The current generation of their erstwhile conquerers have done no harm to them nor are they responsible for the situation they’re born into, after a while it’s simply a cultural intolerance passed down from whatever generation actually had a genuine grievance to their children and so on. Again I find watching that kind of sentiment persist deeply worrying because it’s easy for it to become a hollow justification for deeply immoral actions, that’s something history has shown time and time again. WW2 itself is ripe with examples, the Nazis being the easiest of them all. I suppose it’s a little more complex with WW2 because a sizable portion of the very youngest generation involved are still around, but as they’re generally a very small fraction of their country’s current population dealing with nationalities is no longer even close to an accurate aproximation.

            As for everyone in the country being responsible for their leader’s actions. I’d say, like with personally experiencing a foreign invasion, perhaps you need to be part of a totalitarian regime to fully understand the amount of control you can exert on national policy. The country wasn’t just split into people who commited the crimes and people who ordered the crimes, that’s ridiculous. There were those who openly resisted and were silenced, those who tried to subvert things more subtly, those too scared to resist, those too misinformed to know the truth and many more subgroups, and you’d declare them all guilty because some of them still did horrible things? Even in mostly democratic states questionable acts are sometimes carried out against the majority’s wishes on the authority of a few in power, and not for lack of those trying to avert them.

      • VeliV says:

        Never said you should not defend yourself, did I? More like that we should not look at history by the numbers, as it actually dumbs down the way we see the actual events in history. If war becomes an spreadsheet with numbers then all the suffering of a induvidual (like your grandmother) becomes only a statistic and not a thing we can learn from. Numbers will only be used to justify further actions, where the induvidual happenings offer us a chance to learn.

        It’s like comparing two holocausts and saying that the 1st one wasn’t as bad as the second one because less people died in it. None of them should have happended in the 1st place. The problem here is that an argument like this makes the lesser one somewhat acceptable, like there would be some number of vicims for a “normal” holocaust and all that go above that number is a “bad” holocaust.

        Think of the actual horrors that happened (and is happening still) and your realise that it’s much more important to look at those induvidually, so we can learn from history and not repeat it.

  11. mouton says:

    Russian casualties would have been a bit lower, providing Stalin hadn’t shot the whole damn officer cadre first. I am sure it is easier not to lose your men for people who have actual experience and military education.

    Also, they did prefer to scout defences and minefields by sending a lot of people there. It sure found all the mine and HMG positions.

    • Gap Gen says:

      The Eastern Front is about as close as we got to Orwell’s 1984 – i.e., two brutal totalitarian fighting a bitter war of attrition with little regard for the common soldier (I’m guessing the Germans were a little more protective of their men, but it was still a grim time for both where neither respected things like the Geneva Convention).

      • Kollega says:

        This. I, personally, think that Russians should put all their effort into honoring their fallen soldiers, not Stalin and his cronies. Now if only anyone actually listened to me…

        • Triglav says:

          I think the Russians and the rest of the world were able to make a pretty clear distinction between Stalin and his psychotic (or psychopatic) outlook on life and the heroism, sacrifice and suffering of the Russian soldiers and civillians.

          Which is why communism is pretty much dead, buried and unpopular everywhere, while Red Army’s major share in liberating Europe from nazis is being recognised more and more, now that they’re no longer a general threat of communism taking over the world.

        • mouton says:

          Yup, I am Polish and I despise Stalin, NKVD etc., but I will always honor the poor Russian fellows who were thrown into the meat grinder of their state war machine.

      • Cyrius says:

        The Geneva Convention was in response to the atrocities of WW2.


        • Gap Gen says:

          There were 4 Geneva Conventions, the first 3 of which were before WWII.

          • Cyrius says:

            There were the Hague Conventions (2) and the Geneva PROTOCOLS eliminating use of chemical warfare.

            EDIT: I stand corrected… I am the derper today.

  12. Deccan says:

    This game is about the Eastern Front. What’s that terribly over-wrought American narration doing in the trailer?

    • Triglav says:

      Thank heavens it’s that and not some terrible over the top russian-english narration, like in Red Orchestra 2.

  13. Gap Gen says:

    What a weird message. I mean, I can get what they were trying to do, but instead it came out as “you don’t know anything about history, you ignorant”.

    • Triglav says:

      I agree. It may have come accross as a bit condescending.

      However I can also understand where it’s coming from. Turn on History Channel on any given day and they’ll shove D-Day and their several thousand dead heroes down your throat regularly. Or Pearl Harbor. Or Patton in Africa or France. All with combined casualities on both sides equalling about 12 hours of Stalingrad.

      It is mearly because of the massively incomprehensible scale of death and destruction, that the Eastern Front would deserve proportionally much more time in general “education”. For people to realise what total war is really about and dispell any romantic heroic notions which tend to be associated with the relatively low-casuality US war involvement.

    • Mordsung says:

      Most people are completely ignorant about the Eastern front of WW2.

      Remember, we’re PC gamers, which means we’re usually strategy game fans. Since we are given historical strategy games, something most people do not get on other platforms, our natural knowledge of history is probably a lot better.

      Napoleon Total War taught me more about Napoleon than I had ever learned in school.

    • Gap Gen says:

      Sure, I agree that in the West we don’t see much about the Eastern Front, which is probably down to history educaton focusing on national achievements (hence one of my Polish friends not having heard about the Norman Conquest, etc). I’m talking more about the tone. It seems a very convoluted way of getting across it’s message. I’m sure they had a meeting where someone said “we need to talk about heroism here” and someone says “well, way more Russians died than Americans or British subjects, that’s kinda heroic” and someone says “OK yeah, but no-one knows that, everyone thinks WWII was all D-Day and jumping motorbikes over things so we need to tell them first”, but the end result doesn’t quite work, and comes across as a little patronising.

  14. Trashcanman says:

    Is it just me or is that trailer incredibly tasteless? The eastern front was a horrid section of history and I rarely saw an entertainment product advertise the setting with such bombastic and sensationalist gusto.

    • Kollega says:

      Well, if we look over the flame war in the comments right here, i’d say that the trailer really is -a little- insensitive towards a very touchy subject.

      • Triglav says:

        I’d say for a flame war this one is dispproportionally civil, particularly dealing with a subject as uncivilised as this one. :)

        • Premium User Badge

          Adam Smith says:

          Shame it comes across like that. I spent a day with some of the leads at Relic talking about the game and they were extremely knowledgeable, very respectful of the history and wholly aware of the difficulties in treating it solely as entertainment.

          Goes to show how marketing so often tells its own story.

          • Hematite says:

            Marketing. Marketing never changes.

          • RakeShark says:

            It’s to the point where the developers and the marketing speak two very different languages. One half knows their shit. The other half has to sell that shit. Explosions ‘n stuff, y’know.

        • The Godzilla Hunter says:

          It’s weird, right? As of the time of writing, no one has resorted to name calling and swearing (that I am aware of).

        • Kollega says:

          Yeah, i guess “flame war” and “insensitive” were a bit of an overstatement. Sorry for that.

          And now i do remember reading the interview where Relic said how much research they made and how they wanted to portray Red Army in a nuanced way.

  15. Cyrius says:

    I really like this trailer’s method of showing the loss of life. Seeing the allied soldiers fade away was really dramatic in a subtle way. Pretty artistic.

    Then seeing ENTIRE BATTALIONS of Soviet troops fade away in a similar way really drove the point home about the scale difference in the war.

    This is my most awaited game of my life. Company of Heroes in my opinion is the best game ever made. I will eagerly eat up every single screenshot, teaser, trailer, and tiny tidbit of information I can get about this game and ask for seconds.

    Nathan, you forgot to also include the screenshots they released with the trailer.

    • Triglav says:

      Why I’ve been playing Eastern Front mod more than the original CoH.

      • Cyrius says:

        I personally prefer BK-MOD, I can never find games on EF…

        Hey, if you want to hit me up to play though my in-game is AwesomeHabaAwesome, I would love to actually do EF

  16. GT3000 says:

    All this talk of war crimes and not a single mention of the Rape of Nanking. You guys are disappointing.

  17. MistyMike says:

    I always thought the movie (rather good really) Enemy at the Gates did a lot of damage to the understanding of the Eastern front by the people in the West. The whole absurd ‘one weapon per two soldiers’ thing managed to solidify the stereotypical notion about the Soviet army being all about ‘human wave’ kind of tactics, which is a gross oversimplification, to say the least. I mean, there are plenty examples of the Soviets disregarding individual human life, like the penal battalions mentioned above, but the whole ‘hurrah and onwards’ idea is just silly.

    • Triglav says:

      Read an interesting detail in general Zhukov’s biography, about his argument with some commanders how wastefully they throw away human lives (and precious resources) in head-on charges, instead of using natural cover more. And that even as late as 1945. So yeah, a lot of it wasn’t too subtle at all, particularly on offensive, where Stalin was always pushing for a faster breakthrough than was necesary, which did cause even more casualities.

  18. Eightball says:

    Hopefully you get to play the Russians when they invade Poland. After all, the game’s all about not forgetting any history.

    • MistyMike says:

      You mean in 1939? There wouldn’t be much point since the Polish mostly decided resistance would be futile at that point.

      • Triglav says:

        …or have them stand idly by during the tragic Warsaw uprising…

      • Werthead says:

        Either that or when they re-invaded Poland (and then Germany) in 1944-45, which was not (to put it mildly) a pleasant time.

        Antony Beevor’s STALINGRAD and BERLIN: THE DOWNFALL do collectively illustrate the morality of the conflict. STALINGRAD is set entirely in Stalingrad. We are clearly meant to empathise with the Russians as they initially mount a heroic, gruelling resistence to the German attack and then cheer as they pull off one of the most impressive strategic encirclements in history. When the book ends with Beevor quoting a Russian soldier berating the German captives and pointing at the ruined city, yelling, “That’s what Berlin’s going to look like!”, it’s a carthartic moment.

        However, BERLIN completely destroys any notion of trying to make the Russians the good guys and the Germans the bad. The invading Russian soldiers slaughter, rape and butcher their way across Poland and Germany on their way to Berlin, whilst Stalin throws away tens or hundreds of thousands of Russian lives in the name of a faster advance to try to take Berlin as soon as possible (pointlessly, as the Americans and British were not concerned about racing to Berlin). The treatment of German civilians by the invading Russian soldiers is not pleasant (though still on a vastly smaller scale than in the Soviet Union, for whatever that’s worth). By the end of the book there’s not much to choose between the sheer savagery of both sides.

  19. callmeclean says:

    It is a pretty pointless trailer. However I like the fact that they are actually saying something good about the soviets in a game trailer. “Yeah America lost a lot of people, but what about these guys maybe we should remember them too!” Cause so much of what Russia did has been lost in the anti-communist era of the years following. Like I knew they lost much more than anyone else. But 11 million troops and 15 million civilians is crazy… you learn something every day.

    • Werthead says:

      The 27 million figure is actually somewhat conservative. In the Ukraine and other parts of southern Russia there were many villages that did not appear on any official Soviet censuses, and whose existence was not officially noted until their ruins were found after the war. The true number of citizens of the Soviet Union who died in the Second World War is likely incalculable, and very likely much higher than the figure of 27 million.

  20. GenBanks says:

    I wish CoHO had carried on too. It was a lot of fun. Hopefully CoH2 incorporates some of the positive aspects of CoHO.

  21. Rovenkar says:

    Communism by itself has nothing to do with tyranny or oppression. The key idea the is “making people better” by educating them, improving their educational, cultural and intellectual level. It’s the system that puts people and their merits above monetary stuff. A bit idealistic, maybe, but definitely good in its core. Just don’t trust propaganda and read stuff before forming opinion.

    Soviet Union in the 30s faced 2 problems:
    1. Low industrial development level
    1a. Famine was a constant threat that forced the government to take drastic measures in agriculture, uniting small farms into huge complexes called “kolhoz” (“collective enterprise”). The same process took place in the US in the 30s, by the way, through ousting small farms out of business.
    1b. Everyone knew that war’s no more then 10 years away (“1918’s peace is just a 20-year ceasefire”), and the country needed to be ready. A huge industrial (and scientific) development push was needed to allow Soviet Union to withstand German assault.
    2. People that made 1917’s Revolution possible couldn’t build anything, only destroy. They needed to be removed from power and be replaced by the new generation, the one that could move the country forward. That’s the reason behind “purges”, this “new generation” ousting the old one.

    Oh, and by the way, to all Polish people who like to speak about the treaty between Germany and Russia. First, I don’t really see you complaing about similar treaty between UK, France and Germany that lead to annexation of Czech Repuplic. The reason is Poland taking part in that, robbing the Czech of some territory. Second, you seem to forget that Poland was an ally of Germany till 1939, planning to invade Russia in the same way as Finland actually did. It’s nice to act like you’ve been robbed, but in reality it was a game that Poland tried to play and lost.

  22. RegisteredUser says:

    So this is where where House went after Season 8.