Compagny of Heroes for free

[FalconFra]

Compagny of heroes (game launch in 2006) is free now !!! I'm a big fan of this game and now he is free with a lot of modication. All OG must dowload the BETA u'll see it's the best game of the world ^^

http://www.fileplanet.com/promotions/company-of-heroes-online/landing-b.aspx

[Magic]

edit

[Crustyface]

I liked Men of War (especially for its tiny system requirements). This must be good, too ÂÂ*:)

[FalconFra]

yep it's the same thing ;)

[Magic]

edit

[C4b4nossi]

Got my Account.....we ll see...

[Kenzey]

20GB free space required ÂÂ* 30GB free space required


What the hell?

[C4b4nossi]

yep. for download and file extraction and some "temp" space...

[C4b4nossi]

f**k - just tried it - its a strategy game - nothing for me.

[CadBF]

"strategy game" is an impropre marketing name for CoH, as it actually has quite nothing to do with strategy. ÂÂ*It's indeed a squad-based real-time tactic online game (I'd say "Real-Time-Tactic" or "RTT" to avoid confiusion). ÂÂ*
To get the "strategy" label it should at least involve long term in any way, including logistics and maybe diplomacy/politics...

Hard to get the nuance ? ÂÂ*Here's an example :

- when British Empire decided to send Wellington to Belgium and help Prussia to face Napoleon, it was strategy (because decision involved many long-term aspects) ;
- when Wellington has won against Napoleon at Waterloo it was tactics, itself resulting from a wider time-scaled military strategy.

Other example ?

At El Alamein Montgomery's strategy was to wait for Rommel hoping he'd fall into a trap. ÂÂ*Rommel's tactics was better, he made a lot of unexpected damage to Brits, was not captured and could retreat with part of his forces (Some see El Alamein as a german tactical victory). ÂÂ*But strategically Rommel has lost because he was depending of decisions taken at headquarters in Germany and in Rome long monthes before...

That's why we're making a difference between a tactical victory and a strategic victory. ÂÂ*Every wargamer knows that.
In other words tactics can win a battle, but only strategy can win a war (or a campaign).
Games should follow the same definitions, or the customer will be confused and buy a game he doesn't really want...
So a squad-based game could be a "strategy game" only if it would last monthes, wich is presently not interesting game editors.

In the future we'll hopefully see games combining tactics and strategy, even including FPS why not, with every player choosing the scale of play he wants and the playtime he wants (his role beeing taken back by AI or a queueing player as he exits the game, but it will imply players accepting to "suffer" decisions from others at a different level). ÂÂ*Are they ready for that ?... ÂÂ*
I am, and you ?