Talk:Company of Heroes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Video games (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Tentative Information[edit]

Since the game is in open beta, actual information on what the game plays like is known, but the article should be tagged since its still in development.--2ltben 03:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Quote[edit]

I think we can leave this part as the game is on the market for a good time now. AS for the copy protection, that is not really our problem. If they wont put some good copy protection on the game then thats it, its theirs and not ours. P.S. IF we are arguing on this thing for soo long, and i still see the text box that says: "This page needs rewriting..." How come nobody edited the page. AS i wrote these reviews, like everybody had their ideas how come you didnt posted them? I posted something on that page when the game was still in beta. And i said it too then. This game breaks the rules of RTS, as, it is not as the old Age of Empires, Or Empire Earth. However that edit was deleted, i still dont know why (i am not really familiar with wikipedia, i used to read articles, and not to post). If anybody wants to write me a message then my email is stykat@gmail.com.

--80.85.50.35 (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.165.2.1 (talkcontribs) date

PC Gamer Reviews?[edit]

PC Gamer, as a matter of policy, doesn't review games before they are completed. This stems from a debacle many years ago when they gave a positive review to a game which, when shipped, was filled with bugs and flaws.


Since this game hasn't been released, it's not possible that they reviewed it under this policy. Additionally, I looked through the last years worth of magazines and didn't see a review. It's also not listed on the PC Gamer review database online.

I'm removing the review part for now. If anyone finds something to the contrary, please fix it.

I just bought the game and can see the review on the box. It is likely that this review is in the upcoming magazine, and THQ saw no reason to publish a different box one month after release. Gundato 21:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The game was out the day you posted this.

"PC Gamer UK awarded Company of Heroes 94%, the highest they have given an RTS, they also gave it a 'Must Buy' tag". This statement is 'technically' true in the sense that whilst no dedicated real-time strategy game has been given this high a score before (although a few have hit 91% and 92%), at least one hybrid real-time/turn-based strategy game has achieved higher (Rome: Total War achieved 95% in late 2004 and Medieval 2 did match Company of Heroes' score just a few months later). That said, I don't see how the statement can be changed without making it needlessly complicated.--Werthead 14:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I knew I had seen an extremely positive review for the game (in the US version) so I check thought my last 6 issues and heres what I found: October 06, issues no. 153. 96% (thats 2% down from the highest) and editors choice AND it was on the cover of the magazine for the month. Just bringing it to your attention, someone can feel free to put it in the article. Toxic Ninja 04:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

No copy protection[edit]

Is it worth mentioning that this game doesn't seem to have any copy protection (apart from cd key), or any cd check after installing. This is very rare in this day and age, especially for such a big release from a well known company. Xep 22:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I wonder why? Maybe they decided it was futile and decided to see what happened. A quick check of torrentspy shows that thousands of people are currently downloading it and has been snatched tens of thousands of times. I hope some of them realize how awesome it is an decide to buy it :\. --Karafias 22:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
The main selling point of this game is multiplayer. Dawn of War had a CD-check but ultimately if you wanted to play it online you had to get your own company. I think it's a smart business model. But no, I do not think it's worth mentioning.

As of Dec 2009 and the anthology version, the game has CD Keys and now requires the user to be online in order to play. You also need to be online to register the game, as the anthology comes with multiple Keys and you can only enter one at installation time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.102.186 (talk) 14:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the main selling point is the multiplayer. The single player campaign is one of the greatest in recent years, despite it being yet another WW2 game. Xep 22:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
It's fairly rare but seems like its starting to become more common. The latest Dawn of War expansion, by Relic, does away with CD checking, as do games such as Galactic Civilizations 2 and Phantasy Star Universe. 71.226.17.185 18:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
The single-player campaign is definitely one of the strong selling points, but that is ultimately irrelevant to the topic at hand. It is my personal opinion that this particular no-protection model should be mentioned since it is rare and somewhat indicative of the company's approach to business. The only question here is how important an information this is for the reader of the article. Since we are describing technical aspects of the game and points on which it stands out from other games, it might be worth mentioning. DrChengele 20:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Is this true? I've seen mention of SecuRom in some reviews of the game (e.g. Amazon) which makes me nervous CKazz (talk) 20:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

POV.. needs rewrite[edit]

Company of Heroes also utilises the Havok 3 Physics Engine, allowing CoH to accurately depict the physics of every in-game object. Parts of buildings can be destroyed by grenades or mortars while tanks can drive through sections of walls and other barriers. Due to the Havok Physics Engine, smoke from the explosions, dirt and building rubble behaves almost realistically. Smoke billows influenced by wind direction, dirt showers troops and rubble bounces and rolls. When infantry are bombarded by artillery and are hit, body parts are flung in accordance with the Havok Physics Engine.

Sounds like something a marketing exec would love to sneak in an article.

Perhaps. Most of that is true, though. Do you have any suggestions on what should change? --Karafias TalkContributions 03:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Without the mention that it actually affects gameplay, it may be seen as that. I'll try giving it a rewrite soon, and mentioning how it affects gameplay. - JNighthawk 02:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Aaaand I never got around to doing it. JNighthawk 17:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the Havoc mention. Physics engines + their effects are well known in the 1st-person shooter genre, but as far as I know, it's still a relative rarity in real-time-strategy games. I would say that the inclusion of the physics engine and its effect on the game is one of the things that makes the game distinct/notable compared to other similar games. Kjl 04:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
The problem as I see is it that it's a bit more than a "mention". For a mention, it carries too much executive grandeur. Definitely needs some slight rephrasing. --Scottie theNerd 09:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Just so we're now all on the same page, it now reads:

Company of Heroes also utilizes the Havok 3 Physics Engine, giving CoH a more realistic physics system than any previous RTS. Parts of buildings can be destroyed by grenades or mortars, and tanks can drive through sections of walls or other barriers. Smoke created from explosions behaves realistically and is influenced by wind. Debris is realistically influenced by explosions; a blast can send barrels flying and shower troops in dirt, leaving behind a large crater. When infantry are bombarded by artillery, body parts detach and are flung in all directions.

I did some slight re-wording and I think someone else also made some changes. --Karafias TalkContributions 10:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Computer specs[edit]

What are the Specs a computer need for the game to runhanson 11:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Hansont

New Potential Link[edit]

http://tales.tsncentral.com - Tales of Heroes - a great resource for CoH players including strategy tips, video commentaries and exclusive interviews with the developers. Should it be added?

Fansite links, which should be included?[edit]

OK, I understand that wikipedia is not a list of links, not a directory. That's a good rule of thumb, but that doesn't mean an arbitrary number of fansites should be chosen. Only including "one" fansite leads to bias. For example, i personally like visiting gamereplays.org. They have much more mature members of the forums and that's one of my focuses. However, planetCoH has quite a large forum base, if less mature, but they are better a news. Then finally, relicnews has perhaps the largest and most hardcore forums, but they are so large it's hard to navigate.

Trying to pick one of these for me would be just gamereplays.org, because it's my favorite, but that doesnt' mean the others dont' have more to offer. three fansite links isn't turning the article into a directory by any strech, so please stop trying to use that argument. How does it hurt this article or wikipedia to include links to valuable resources concerning the game? I have removed the smaller fansites that are not as well traveled and have less resources.Bridger157 18:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

A WP:GOOGLE would be an accurate measure of which fansites to include. --Scottie theNerd 18:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I would go against using fansites and I would NOT use other sites than the official website for the game, which can be found at www.companyofheroes.com, which currently displays the plans Relic and THQ have for CoH2--Marceki111 (talk) 15:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Mistake edited[edit]

Captain Schultz's tank company was named the Tigergroupen, not Panzergroupen. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.235.73.128 (talk) 14:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

Spike video game awards[edit]

It won the "Best Military Game Award of 2006" on the spike 2006 video game awards. Quite an accomplishment as the whole thing is mostly console dominated and Call of Duty 3 was in the running. Someone feel free to add that fact to the awards. Toxic Ninja 04:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Trivia/Easter Eggs[edit]

Should I add a section about trivia and easter eggs ingame? --Įиʛ§øç βїʛβяøтњєя Rant | Contributions 21:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure go ahead. Let it be useful and informative. --SkyWalker 22:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Done, but the section requires MUCH revision and copyedit. --Įиʛ§øç βїʛβяøтњєя Rant | Contributions 02:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


Release date / System Requirements[edit]

The release date was September 11, 2006.

The Minimum System requirements are:

Windows XP or Vista 2.0 GHz Intel Pentium IV or equivalent or AMD Athlon XP or equivalent 512 MB RAM DirectX 9.0c compatible 64MB video card with Pixel Shader 1.1 support or equivalent and latest manufacturer drivers DirectX 9.0c compatible 16-bit sound card DVD-ROM drive Keyboard, Mouse 6.5 GB of uncompressed free hard drive space (We recommend having 1 gigabyte of free space after installation)[1] --Aegisxgundam 00:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I ran the game on my old radeon 9200, the models for all units and buildings didn't show up, so i do doubt those are the requirements. Toxic Ninja 05:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC) Same as above for a Radeon 9250 256meg card. 01/04/2007 22.45 (BST)

Collector edition.[edit]

What are the maps available in Company of Heroes Collector edition.? --SkyWalker 17:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC) It doesn't show detail with a Radeon 9250 graphics card ???

Pictures in article[edit]

The pictures in the article, in some cases, have a fairly low resolution on, and the game's graphics don't appear quite as flashy as they actually are, making it seem inconsistent with the previous description of the Essence engine. Is there anyone who can get higher quality screenshots? Specifically, better model quality and texture quality.

I could but the game doesn't look that much better than those screenshots BJTalk 08:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Stormtrooper link[edit]

The current link for the stormtrooper unit in the table links to a ww1 article.Obviously this is incorrect. I think the link should link to the Waffen SS as the stormtroopers are clearly a representatin of them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ashmole (talkcontribs) 00:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

The game's narrator[edit]

Sergeant (later Lieutenant) Conti At the start of the game, the First Sergeant of Able Company. He was with Captain MacKay at boot camp, and is revealed to be the game's narrator. He is almost killed alongside Captain (Mug) MacKay. Afterwards, he is promoted to Lieutenant, and commands Able Company for the rest of the game.

I played through the game a few times but never found that reference, can anyone confirm this fact?Jim101 02:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup[edit]

The single player section is rather badly written:

The first level is Omaha Beach or D-Day where you got to run up a hill and kill guys then followed by Verville (Verville actually happened before Omaha Beach but its ok, when Fox Company dropped early D-Day morning). The following level is Carentan again played with Fox Company and then Carintan Counterattack is where Fox Company is reinforced by Able Company.......

The 'run up a hill and kill guys' bit and 'but its ok' part are particularly bad but the whole section is not written in a very encylopaedic manner... Nil Einne 13:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I just realised an anon modified it recently and I'm assuming good faith that he or she was trying to improve it but it just made it worse IMHO so I reverted it. For example, one of the spellings was modified but the earlier spelling appears to have been correct because the first wikilink is a bluelink. Given this, I don't trust that said anon got other spelling changes right. [2]

The first level is Omaha Beach or D-Day then followed by Vierville (Vierville actually happened before Omaha Beach, when Fox Company dropped early D-Day morning). The following level is Carentan again played with Fox Company and then Carentan Counterattack is where Fox Company is reinforced by Able Company. Montebourg is the next level it is also known as the "Red Ball Express" where Able Company saves Dog Company from Axis forces.

Without the 'run up hill and kill guys' and 'but its ok' bits which anon added, it's a bit better but the prose still needs work. It needs to flow a bit better and not just 'then' 'next' 'followed' etc. Nil Einne 13:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say this entire section should be replaced with a brief description of the overall story of the single-player campaign. The current listing of missions isn't appropriate for an encylopedia article, regardless of how well or poorly it is written. The section 'Distinguished Characters' also smacks of fancruft and in my view should be removed.--CIreland 01:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

A brief list of characters is common among game articles. However, I don't see one necessary for this game. --Scottie_theNerd 06:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The Single Player Campaign section is much improved now, thanks to the efforts of Jim101 but it could use an illustrative screenshot (either from in game or from promo material) - if anyone has or knows of one. CIreland 10:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Table of Units[edit]

This is purely game guide material. There is already a units section outlining the basic features of units in the game. There is no need to include a list of every single unit in the game; such a list violates WP:NOT and goes against Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games. I will remove this list if there are no objections. --Scottie_theNerd 09:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree. As characters are integral to an RPG, so too are units to an RTS. A list of all units and descriptions *should* be included. With some cleanup, that table will be great. - JNighthawk 04:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
If you disagree, bring this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games. Wikipedia is not the place to discuss an RTS game's units nor is it the place to include extensive descriptions of RPG characters. Such information can be found at game Wikis listed in the VG WikiProject page. If you would like to contribute in-depth information regarding units, please consider contributing to a specialised gaming site. Wikipedia caters for the general reader, and lists of units is not integral for that purpose. --Scottie_theNerd 08:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"Numerous"[edit]

The use of the word "Numerous" in this sentence in the Gameplay section caught my eye: 'Numerous complaints have emerged about the net code that COH runs on'. Is the use of the word justified? If so, is there a reference?


Majority of the online playerbase has constant issues with the online ranking, matchmaking system and match arbitration in case of a disconnect. They are not really complaining about the net code the game runs on - all they know (and this is almost universally agreed upon) is that the online matching system and game arbitration system are very, for lack of a better word, annoying to use. Issues include: stats sometimes not updating after ranked matches; smurfing (an occurence where experienced players make secondary accounts, beating high-ranked players with their low-rank smurfs and thus significantly lowering their rankings); an exploit called "drophacking" where a player losing a match can force a disconnect (either by physically disconnecting his modem) after which he is assigned a victory; etc, etc. Majority of the problems are being fixed by Relic in periodic patches, but issues still remain and Relic Online still hasn't left its infant stages. DrChengele 20:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
That wasn't the question. Where are the references for such claims? --Scottie_theNerd 20:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I can reference numerous threads on the official and unofficial forums, but I doubt that makes for good reference material. There are certainly enough of threads and individual complaints, so I guess that qualifies as an answer. There are no official statements, articles, blog entries or releases that focus on these complaints. Only forum threads. Lots of forum threads. DrChengele 21:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
With no reliable sources, no claims can be made in the article. --Scottie_theNerd 21:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. But then sentences such as 'numerous complaints have emerged about the net code that CoH runs on' do not belong in the article. DrChengele 21:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Article expansion: Balance Issues et al.[edit]

Do you think there is room in the article for a brief caveat on game online balance? I've been in the community since beta and the game, although now patched to version 1.7, is still showing imbalance in certain areas. Keep in mind this is universally agreed upon in the community. This is potentially much more important for CoH than some other RTS games since there are only two factions to choose from. Without going into specifics in the article, it might be worth it to just mention in a few sentences (in the online play section) how community feels that multiplayer balance is constantly changing with every next patch and that the game is still in a state of balancing flux. The only problem with this is that there are no reliable sources analyzing the actual game imbalances; as described in the "Numerous" section, all that exists to show this community consensus are forum threads that are unfortunately not suitable for referencing. I would like to point out that, unlike most multiplayer games out there, Company of Heroes has a relatively small online player base. At the very least the controversy could be mentioned.

The purpose of this would not be trying to influence anyone's decision to try the game out, but people reading about the game should know about all its aspects. Our goal shouldn't be positive or negative advertisement, but description and basic analysis of the game. And game balance is an important part of online multiplayer experience. DrChengele 21:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, reliable sources is the problem, but also WP:NOT. I'm not sure how you can analyse the gameplay balance of CoH without wandering into WP:NOT or WP:OR. Additionally, if CoH has a small online community, such information would be less important, compared to balance issues in StarCraft, which only has three factions, or Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2, which also has two. Difference is, SC is a featured article, and sets the standard for content. Additionally, by over-analysing the game, we defeat the purpose of explaining the topic to the general reader, focusing instead on actual players. A balance analysis means very little if you haven't played the game, but would certainly belong on sites such as StrategyWiki. --Scottie_theNerd 21:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
There is an additional problem in that games such as Red Alert 2 and Starcraft allow for so-called mirror matches (Zerg versus Zerg), whereas Company of Heroes forces players to play Allies versus Axis, which makes for precisely one matchup possibility in 2-player multiplayer games. On the other hand, Starcraft has 9 possible matchups. On closer consideration, that is another fact that deserves mentioning - Company of Heroes is one of the first mainstream RTS games on the market that does not allow for mirror matches and automatically handles alliances in team games based on factions chosen. In CoH, Allies are always teamed up versus Axis. Now that is something that can be referenced from many sources - question is, is it relevant enough to be in the article? DrChengele 21:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
If it is to be cited as significant, it needs a reliable source that states just that. You cannot go out on a branch and make that claim yourself. --Scottie_theNerd 11:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
It is common knowledge to anyone who ever started the game up, but I realize the need for sources. There is this source here that includes an official response of a Relic developer, however it is on a fan-based forum. This link here, however, is on what is closest to the official Relic community management page. And of course this piece of information is included in virtually every review out there, and I would think that Gamespot's official review is credible enough to look no further: 'In fact, in a strange departure from similar games, Company of Heroes always forces you to play Allies versus Axis, even in multiplayer matches. Matches with more than two players are always team-based, with one side as the Allies and the other as the Axis, and so forth'. DrChengele 18:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Definitely good material. Throw it in. --Scottie_theNerd 08:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Grammar issue: Plural done right?[edit]

As a german Wikipedia-reader, I have noted, that the word "Gruppen" (meaning: groups) does appear quite often, but I'm not sure, whether the supposedly English-speaking authors know that this is the plural of the word, while the singular is "Gruppe" (meaning: group).

Dawn of War?[edit]

This page is "Company of Heroes", not "Company of Heroes and Dawn of War: a Compare-and-Contrast". Reference could be made at some point to similarities between the games, but the superfluous descriptions of Dawn of War are out of place.--68.100.78.74 22:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Steam vs Boxed retail[edit]

What are the differences, if any? Is there a DVD/CD check performed by the boxed version? Are there any other variations? MrZaiustalk 17:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

There is quite a few differences. COH did not have DVD check until patch 2.101. If you are unable to get COH retail copy where you live. Steam is the best choice. Steam requires you need to install steam client. Steam have different copy protection. But still both the retail and steam need internet connection if you want to play the game. If incase you have problems with internet connectivity or you don't have net you can still play the game you need to have the disk in your dvd drive to run the game. In steam you need a compulsory internet connection for you run the game and plus you don't need the drive. Both of them have their own advantages and disadvantages. Sorry there is no other variations. --SkyWalker (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
How about the GameTap edition? And do the Steam/GameTap editions get you the GOTY edition, patched through directx10, etc? CKazz (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Similarities with Band of Brothers?[edit]

Could someone better informed than me add a mention of the obvious similarities to the famous mini-series? APW (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaking this for "Brothers in Arms" which uses the same typeface as BoB for mission titles. There is nothing identical in this game because you play with company Able most of the time (except for a few missions where you use another company) and BoB is starred by the Easy company.--Marceki111 (talk) 15:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

King Tiger?[edit]

In the Units section it describes that King Tiger is playable in CoH.Is this true and when it was added?I thought Tiger 2 was only available in CoH:Opposing Fronts.Can somebody explain and add it to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkh92 (talkcontribs) 13:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The 1.7GB patch that allows people who only own Company of Heroes to play against people who own Opposing Fronts changes the balance and replaces the Tiger for the Terror tree with the King Tiger. dreddnott (talk) 08:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


The Tiger II or King tiger was added in Opposing fronts, you can only get one tank, if its destroyed, its gone for that match indefintly. It was replaced by the Tiger I, Elite Ace, on the terror doctrine. Many other changes are within that particular expansion pack for online play. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.30.175.149 (talk) 03:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

RTS?[edit]

I don't think CoH can be classified as a RTS because it lacks the basic resource gathering and creation of units that is basic to a RTS.

Oh please not again. First comes World in Conflict now this. Has far i know RTS genre is changing. It is just not base building or resource gathering. --SkyWalker (talk) 04:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Then it is not a RTS. It is much more of a RTT, the "new" developing genre.
It would seem that the majority of the rest of the gaming community disagrees with you, anon. CoH is classified as an RTS, and this is not the place for you to dispute it. 214.13.173.15 (talk) 18:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Except that it does have resource gathering and unit creation, even if the system for them is different. A RTT would be more like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warhammer:_Mark_of_Chaos 89.36.53.11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Steam Release Date[edit]

What is the purpose of listing the steam release date in the introductory paragraph? It is just another video game store and certainly isn't essential for the introductory paragraph.

I removed it but then SkyWalker reverted my edit. I'd like to hear other opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Almogo (talkcontribs) 19:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Organization change[edit]

While the Video Game article guidline suggests that gameplay be placed ahead of story, it also notes that you should "...not try to conform to (the guidelines) if they are not helping to improve the article." The issue in this particular article is that a reader who is unfamiliar with the game has no idea what the game is about until scrolling past the large "Gameplay" section. Reading the story section first makes the gameplay section much easier to understand in context. The guidelines state that in some cases, the story can be combined into the gameplay section. I suggest either moving the story section ahead of gameplay, or at least adding some brief story information into the opening of gameplay (or even the lead) to establish a bit of context. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The whole article needs to be rewritten. If you can help in improving the article. I would help you too. That is reason i stamped those tags in there. Both the gameplay and story needs to be rewritten. --SkyWalker (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

CD or DVD[edit]

the picture of the box says CD, the requirements list CD and DVD... This should all be clarified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.202.89.125 (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

What else needs to be clarified is the patch system which is by far the worst I've ever experienced. Their website points you to a patch tree that ends at 2.101 then after launching you are FORCED to login to play a single player campaign and also, to download patch after patch after patch which seem to branch into the opposing front patch trees. Very very bad business model if you ask me. Turning people off in droves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.125.253 (talk) 03:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

That's my biggest problem with getting started with this game, GameTap has the best price but I know the least about how it will patch CKazz (talk) 20:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

To the anons, and Ckazz, the talk page is only for the improvement of the article. Take your software-related discussions elsewhere, maybe in the game's official site. Thank you. --Eaglestorm (talk) 04:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I can assure you that the requirements are right: the game comes on both DVD-ROM AND CD-ROM (2 DVDs for the game and 1 CD-ROM with updates, at least that's how Newton Station, an Argentine computer and software vendor, sells it. [1] --Marceki111 (talk) 09:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Windows 7 compatibility[edit]

Since installation on 2010-02-03 of "Windows 7 Professional Media Center Edition" Build 6.1.7600 in English and CoH and CoH "Opposing Fronts" (German) with latest patches CoH runs without ANY problems, even using login with a password using a mix of special characters and alphanumerics! And with better performance than on Windows XP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.133.88.248 (talk) 23:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent edit:[edit]

I removed some overly detailed items, bits which went too far explaining how units are used in the game etc. If there's any problem with it, make sure to post here. I also think the bit about directional cover should have it's own section. At the time, it was both a revolutionary RTS factor to have directional cover in game, and it's the most prominent part of the game, in my opinion at least. Cheers -Evaristé93 (talk) 19:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

...Thanks for the words of encouragement! It'll take some polishing to get the article to the appropriate level of verbosity (...and with proper fact checking, as I can't seem to remember nearly as many details as I should!) Am I correct in saying that you feel the article should focus more on the general concepts that distinguish COH from other games (rather than the function of the units themselves)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.182.66.207 (talk) 02:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply, forgot i posted here. But yea, that's pretty much how i feel. As long as we don't dip too far into becoming a game guide, like explaining which units beat other units, then i think every thing else should be appropriate.

But like i said, if anyone can be arsed to do it, i feel the directional cover in the game deserves its own section in the article. -Evaristé93 (talk) 18:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Company of Heroes: Eastern Front[edit]

I've heard the Company of Heroes: Eastern Front was released early this year, if thats the case why is there no wiki page for it or is it an unofficial release? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julian Grebe (talkcontribs) 21:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It has been AFD'd twice. Want to create it a third time?--Eaglestorm (talk) 01:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
It's an unofficial mod. Unless it gets covered in multiple gaming magazines like Rome Total Realism and other famous mods, it doesn't warrant a wiki page -Evaristé93 (talk) 17:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Category: Mobile Phone Games[edit]

Why did it get tagged with the Mobile Games category? Company of Heroes is not a mobile game, nor is there a mobile version of it as far as I'm aware. I'll get rid of the category if noone explains it withing a few days.Kab00seAB34 (talk) 02:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


Steamworks server switch[edit]

Is the switch to Steamworks worth mentioning in the article? This happened from May 7 where all versions had to use a new steam version. See the following links for more info: http://www.vg247.com/2013/04/23/company-of-heroes-getting-steamworks-support-new-version-from-may-7/ http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Relic-Entertainment-Steamworks-CoH,21680.html JoshHendo (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Band of Brothers speech from Richard Winters from Easy company[edit]

Does anybody know whether the game's name comes from that short speech Richard Winters gave at the end of Band of Brothers? If yes, maybe we should include it somehow.

Grandchild: "Grandpa, were you a hero during the war?"

Winters: No, but I served in a company of heroes."

Here is the short speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jr86eegSeFM

--2001:4661:7FD5:1:CD62:D421:D30B:6789 (talk) 03:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.newton-station.com/index.php?seccion=3&id=2501