@YTMediaCommunity That's a Churchill tank, carrying a 4 or 6 pounder if I'm not mistaken, she had the heaviest armour of any British tank of the war. She'd be a pain in the arse for the Panther to rid herself of. And the Shermans carry 17 pounders, plant one of those in a Panther's arse and there'll be trouble. Which is what happened in the video.
@JackaWilko The Croc is a late Churchill so would have the 75mm and no chance. Early Churchill had 2pdr but changed quick to the 6pdr. The Sherman with 17pdr is called Firefly.
@YTMediaCommunity Yeah good point, Except for the fact that 1. The Pershing was a superior design to the panther and would've easily taken it out, Mainly at that range, and
2. That's not even a Pershing, It's a Churchill, And those were sherman fireflies to the side which could easily penetrate the Panther even at long ranges.
@mynameistoolonglol Well, the Pershing was underpowered and had terrible fuel consumption, the gun was not particularly effective at penetrating armour (the shell's weight had a detrimental effect on muzzle velocity) and it was a large target. On an open battlefield at long range I'd pick the Panther, but in an urban situation the Pershing would be in trouble too because it really struggled with pivot turning unlike like the Panther.
@SpadXIIIFlyer Doesn't matter. The Panther's really long, accurate high velocity cannon's AP round can penetrate 400MM. If i could capitalize 400 to show emphasis on that, I would.
@SpadXIIIFlyer The Allies did win the war, so just give the axis far superior tanks, but harder to get, and allies far inferior tanks but much easier to accquire. That should be enough balance. Churchill (almost) never beats Panther 1 on 1. Or even 4 on 1 for that matter.
@SwissCheese707 400mm? Are you on crack? Even the 17 Pounders APDS shot (Which had superior penetration to any round the the L/70 could fire.) Only penetrated half of that at 500m, Claiming the L/70 could penetrate 400mm with standard AP is just laughably wrong.
@mynameistoolonglol I don't know what I was thinking when I said that, but the Armor Piercing Discarding Sabot (APDS) Fired by the Panther penetrates 298mm.
Nicely done mate. The opposing player was a retard, he should have accompanied the Panther with a recon unit as a probe to avoid silly ambushes like this. Bravo!
I hate british tanks,so weak and the cost tons of fuel and MP...firefly can be only good used on the open fields cuz they have the biggest range in game except 88 and AT I think but their arrmor sux. Brits are so lame agains tanks :(
@rolficus AMEN!!! but RO is a fps simulation. I have played mods where they make coh realistic, and they suck. Its not even and the game just does not work. (and 1 stug can beat like an entire sherman army, but thats real life for ya)
@AdamSavage88 This game isn't realistic mate.This game is realistic in the same way that OFP: Red River is realistic. Men of War is the realistic RTS.
@Terrr05 No, Men of war is not that realistic. All it did was add a whole lot of things that can get damaged, and it makes people think its realistic. Realistic is a t-34 never being able to kill a panther/tiger at anymore than 2 feet away, in real life the jagdtiger could kill any tank at any range. But its not like that because then allies will say germany is OP. Its impossible to make a realistic ww2 game without having more allied players than axis.
@AdamSavage88 Tigers DO dominate other tanks in Men of War. People don't think the game's realistic because some buildings can be destroyed, people think it's realistic because enemies can be killed with one shot. As can most vehicles, provided you hit a weak spot. Just like real life. I'm no tank expert, but I'm sure AP rounds aimed at a tank's engine, even now a days, would put that tank out of action.
@Terrr05 I was not talking about the tiger.... I am talking about the jagdtiger. The tank with 10 inch front armor, a 12.5 cm main gun and i think 7 in side armor and an accurate gun range of 20,000 meters( 22,000 meters top range). It was the heaviest and most powerful tank serviced in ww2. And when shooting the, rounds bounce off the IS class soviet tanks. The is-2 (heaviest soviet tank) had, at thickest, 6 inch armor. The panthers gun could penetrate that. Games have to be balanced...
@AdamSavage88 Christ, just don't put such a vehicle in the game then. Even still, use an aeroplane to knock it out, use your smarts and lay AT mines, use a faster vehicle to out manoeuvre it and shoot it from behind; there are a lot of ways around a big gun. My point still stands that MoW is far more realistic than CoH.
@Terrr05 I dont think u see my point. The StuG (with a weak gun compared to other German tanks) could penetrate 80mm or armor at 1000 yards. That's every allied tank except the Russian heavies.So, in order to be realistic, the stug should 1 hit kill every tank in the game, except the soviet heavies, and every western allied tanks because in the game you dont fight at thousands of yards distances. Should they just leave that tank out too? Coh is less "realistic" but its more fun IMO.
@AdamSavage88 Really couldn't care less right now mate. 80mm this, 100mm that, 20k yards there; 1 shot at a weakpoint on a vehicle will put it out of action, just as 1 shot from a rifle will incapacitate a rifleman in MoW. This is why MoW is realistic. I don't think RTS battles would work at extreme ranges, so in that regard, I fully expect it to be unrealistic.
@Terrr05 MoW is not realistic. No game is. Oh if you are stupid fanboy trying to satisfy his ego; yes in terms of gameplay it is more realistic. Now you can sleep well.
@ViperCanel Cheers, three months have passed since I last thought of this conversation but I've spent the entire time wondering why I struggle to sleep at night. Finally, I feel like a new man. At last I'll be able to sleep well again, thank you so much. Seriously though, I don't get what the point of leaving that message was other than to troll. Nothing I said had anything to do with you, but you still decide to get all pissy with me the first time you say anything to me. Leave me alone.
@Terrr05 Lol, look at the guy calling me troll! Trying to point out how realistich MoW IN A COH VIDEO! That is trolling. Also I didn't get pissy at you. I agree with you MoW having a much more realistic core gameplay. I just don't like the fact, fanboys like you love to come to game videos to point out how the thing they play is superior. You know what that is called? That is just weak. Sorry to have awakened you from the depths. I realized the date after finishing. I am happy I was helpful :D
@ViperCanel 1. I replied to a message talking about RO apparently shitting on this game. I didn't watch this video to leave a snotty message. 2. I own this game, and I enjoy it, so don't throw that fanboy card at me because you couldn't be more wrong if you tried. 3. Get the fuck off my case. You don't know anything about me, so please stop making assumptions.
@Terrr05 I just can't read every goddamn comment you made and spend hours on character analyzing. I just read your last few comments, replying your argument contained in them; and the last comment you made have no difference from the characteristics of MoW fanboy comments who occasionally visit CoH videos to troll. It is good then if you are not one of them, because I am tired of them shitting game videos.
@ViperCanel I told you, nothing I said to that other guy had anything to do with you. Mind your own business. Also, everything I said was pretty reasonable and legitimate. MoW IS more realistic than CoH. And I've never said or suggested that MoW is a splitting image of real life or better than CoH either. The irony of your "I hope that one day my brothers will descend upon the puppet masters of false-righteousness and eradicate them from this planet" spiel is staggering, by the way.
fail the churchil would have been destroyed in a instant had that been real lol c'mon i would have been pissed just to see the tank take the shot like ha ha ha i'm still alive! wtf
@Guynumber7 just got the game. i would pick men of war for large scale battles, but company of heroes for the more fun based. men of war takes too much micromanagement to just get a few infantry teams to attack a fortified position.
@Korn1holio No one wants your opinion here about what owns what. As someone already stated, this is a place for ones who either LIKE CoH and wants to enjoy watching its videos, or for those who are curious about it. Please discuss these meaningless remarks in a FORUM. This is not the place. In addition to that CoH is 3 years older than MoW, you should judge games according to their release date.
Can anyone help? I'm just now installint CoH, and haven't had it on my pc for awhile. It's gold adition. I try to sign in to RelicOnline, but it says a patch is required for online, so I click ok. It says it's done downloading and click ok to close game and install patch. So I do, but It says there is an error with part of the patch. I try to download it multiple times without any successes. Please help.
I was expecting CoH to provide me with the same level of tactical immersion, but it happened to be simply stripped down Red Alert-clone in WWII setting.
@Korn1holio No one wants your opinion here about what owns what. As someone already stated, this is a place for ones who either LIKE CoH and wants to enjoy watching its videos, or for those who are curious about it. Please discuss these meaningless remarks in a FORUM. This is not the place. In addition to that CoH is 3 years older than MoW, you should judge games according to their release date.
MOW is actually an expansion. Expansion for game Faces of War which was released as far back as 2006. So no, it's not newer than CoH in any way.
I don't consider my remarks "meaningless", they do have some meaning - I'm comparing two rather similar games. WTF about this being a place only for people who LIKE COH? You're not from some ex-communist country are you? :)
@Korn1holio No one wants your opinion here about what owns what. As someone already stated, this is a place for ones who either LIKE CoH and wants to enjoy watching its videos, or for those who are curious about it. Please discuss these meaningless remarks in a FORUM. This is not the place. In addition to that CoH is 3 years older than MoW, you should judge games according to their release date.
@Korn1holio I must add that CoH is more liked. You can check that in GameSpot very easily. Even the number of reviews of different sources, which is something like 50 for Coh, and 10 for MoW shows that. The MoW can be more tactical, as it is 3 years "younger", but the illusion is created by its "excessive micromanagement." In real "tactical" wars of world, people did not have "inventories" my dear friend. People are not cupboards. When your rifle was broken you would just take your dead friend's
In real wars, my friend, you're absolutely right people can ditch their rifle and take some SMG from the fallen enemy. They can also carry two weapons in case one fails. Can you do that in CoH? This is what I thought..
@Korn1holio and move on. Do not forget that CoH is the name which brought about tactical warfare into RTS genre. If you try to look not-fanboyishly you will see advancement of genres proceed with every good game adding some bricks to the wall. The next game produced gets the good qualities of the older ones and improves them, while also adding their own innovations. So MoW owes most of its aspects to previous games as well.
may I remind that MoW was preceded by Soldiers: Heroes of World War II from which it inherited all it's traits. And this game dates back to 2004. MoW didn't copy a single thing from CoH, I believe, while CoH obviously copied the "direct control" mode from MOW (and SHWWII).
@Korn1holio I share your thoughts about Red Alert having no tactics compared to today's games, but as stated when you judge it in its time period you can see that it was one of the most innovative games of those days. Also I must add that "arcade" is required in every game since we need it to have fun, as we play to have fun. (please read the rest at Gamespot as I am having problems with Youtube, also sorry if you get too much clones of a reply because of the problem)
@kaakje9, the guy that recorded this is the BRITISH. he lured the panther in and had a 17-pounder gun + a sherman firefly sitting right there waiting to kill it.
@cammanderWho----- i have to say that the churchill SUCKS in this game because of its slow speed and weak main gun. BUT what it lacks in weapons and speed it makes up for in armor. however, armor doesnt really help it when there are 5 enmy tanks shooting at it.
@holycrapith The Churchill is meant to be an infantry tank specifically... it's basically a slow, beefy Cromwell that can crush things. The only real AT tank the Brits have is the Firefly... Not to say you can't kill a King Tiger with a well-placed Cromwell (Not bragging or anything)
I thought about it in the past and the fact the game is not realistic (altough more realistic than some other RTSs) bothered me a bit, but the fact the this game is so good and superb made not to care about this.
Some things aren't quite realistic yeah (like the armored vehicles can be taken down by gunfire and so on) , but most of the time the game's pretty close to realistic
It's not an American expression, you just don't speak English well. I'm not American and I know what he's saying perfectly (oh, and i agree with him). Go troll somewhere else, this is a CoH video. If you want to jack off your Men of War buddies go to a Men of War videos.
LOL making a game a GAME instead of a war simulator is so stupid, right? Look at the reviews, look at the sales, CoH is the better game. Realism doesn't determine a game's quality.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
how old are you may i ask? looks you're just another COH fanboy, just like i was(i admit it, please try a game before trashing it please). Also show some respect to other people. i can almost assure that you are barely sociable in real life.
How about show some respect to everyone else here? This video was uploaded so those who enjoy COH can watch and for those who hasn't played can see what the gameplay is like. Throwing a comment like that in here doesn't serve any "sociable" purpose.
If you don't like it, rate the video, leave a comment and move on. There' s no need to call people names here.
@Kenjaiz But you see, I claim to be able to debunk the realism of a game that documents a war I haven't fought in. Like everyone here - All we know is what has been written/told to us, the game is a game, not a historical documentation of the war, we can't judge it's realism. What is the benchmark for a 'realistic' war game? Especially from someone who hasn't fired a weapon in anger?
Wow, nice psychoanalysis, Dr. Adrian. Can I see your PhD? Show respect? Did you even read what YOU wrote? You said "Coh seems so motherfucking stupid". LOL, you don't seem fanboyish at all, doctor. 22 if you have to know, and you have NO place calling anyone a fanboy.
Realism doesn't mean shit to the quality of a game. Super Mario World is one of the best games ever and it's not realistic at all; why does the fact that CoH isn't realistic make it not as good as MoW(I've played both, MoW sucks
@holycrapith i actually played COH a few days ago and i kind of iked it. I dont think its a good idea to reply to comment so old as mine, as much can happen in th meantime :) Sorry if my comment in any way offended you ^^
@holycrapith What do you mean by experts? Your voice and opinion isnt more valuable than mine, or the other way around. Better say"YOU vs. 4 COH players in a COH video=fail"
GTX 260 and HD4850 will probably run it on max. GTX 280 and HD4890 if you want to be sure. But seriously... only the slightest bit of effort typing google[dot]com followed by coh/dow2 benchmarks and you'ld know the answer already. Why are I even replying to you?
There were 1350 Tiger Is produced, although some report 1500. Just under 600 Tiger IIs were produced. All good and fun they were meant for uber pwnage, but 1 hardcore gamer can't take on 100 noobs at the same time. The same was with the Tiger I and II, they were just too difficult to produce.
yep also to complex to maintain and repair sometimes =p and most of them were killing themselfs meaning the tank was too heavy for its susspention or engine to pull... but in the end the german tanks were aimed at perfection witch they achieved , but the allies tanks were ment for mass production same with the soviets.. and that proved to be the key strategy in the end :P
The Firefly could have been hidden behind the building, suddenly coming out and destroying the Panther... That would be first of all much more stylish and second much more effective...
Well Dennis484 as far as i know the Tiger tank (Axis) was the most produced tank. It was made for the wars against Sovjet union. But maybe we are both right.
The german tanks was not better than the allieds tanks, Axis was known for their tanks, but not how good the tanks were, it was because they were so easy to produce and because they had such a massive numbers of them. But yes i do agree Allies are better than Axis in the CoH.
Thedark008 i think you got it backwards. The Allies had tanks that where easy to produce. German tanks were more complex and more expensive. Yeah they did have alot of armor but most of it was old and obsolete.
-.-'' The allied tanks during ww2 were smaller in size and armor/ firepower capabilities were reduced due to the fact that had to be TRANSPORTED to the front the german tanks were more complex and tougher they lacked the speed of the allied tanks but the firepower and armor were clearly superior. (sherman-tiger comparison)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
That Axis player was a retard, but then again everyone knows Allies are OP in this game. Their only defence is "ITS A GAME SO IT SHOULDN'T BE REALISTIC!!"... so its ok then if the Axis get trenches and 17 pounders because its a game?
i use the same tatics against pathers .tigers and king tigers.i use a churchhill or two to take them front on as they have heavy amour(use hull down ) and use my cromells with flankspeed and take the rear of german heavy tanks works everytime .
Yeah, it might not be able to beat a Panther or a Tiger, but it could at least stand it's ground untill backup arrived, which is more than a Sherman could do. They were also a lot less prone to "Brewing up" (catching fire). The British army called Shermans "Ronsons" After a popular brand of Cigarette lighter (Lights first time, every time)!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
what an irreal game. a Panther with his high velocity L/70 75mm gun could penetrate that crappy churchill at ranges over 1500m, and here about 10meters he couldn't....
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Not to mentino a rear shot?!? Oh please, make them real. Then we can see who is a better commander. But as the game is now, is little difference to Starcraft. (from the point of view of basic ideea: colect resurce, spend them on tech and units...)
in real life, the pershing (tank the panther was trying to defeat) would have been destroyed and the shermans would be next
YTMediaCommunity 2 months ago
@YTMediaCommunity That's a Churchill tank, carrying a 4 or 6 pounder if I'm not mistaken, she had the heaviest armour of any British tank of the war. She'd be a pain in the arse for the Panther to rid herself of. And the Shermans carry 17 pounders, plant one of those in a Panther's arse and there'll be trouble. Which is what happened in the video.
JackaWilko 1 month ago
@JackaWilko The Croc is a late Churchill so would have the 75mm and no chance. Early Churchill had 2pdr but changed quick to the 6pdr. The Sherman with 17pdr is called Firefly.
Try Men of War if you want more realism :D
MarkofZollo 1 month ago
@YTMediaCommunity Yeah good point, Except for the fact that 1. The Pershing was a superior design to the panther and would've easily taken it out, Mainly at that range, and
2. That's not even a Pershing, It's a Churchill, And those were sherman fireflies to the side which could easily penetrate the Panther even at long ranges.
Try doing some actual research next time.
mynameistoolonglol 1 week ago
@mynameistoolonglol Well, the Pershing was underpowered and had terrible fuel consumption, the gun was not particularly effective at penetrating armour (the shell's weight had a detrimental effect on muzzle velocity) and it was a large target. On an open battlefield at long range I'd pick the Panther, but in an urban situation the Pershing would be in trouble too because it really struggled with pivot turning unlike like the Panther.
jeebateeba56 6 hours ago
noob
Cherryking400 2 months ago
scheiß britten panzer!
toniTHEmaster 2 months ago
i hate panther
johnmanolo05 2 months ago
"ok gg" :D
jokecukie 2 months ago 2
There is no way a panther doesn't penetrate a Churchill's frontal armor. I was considering playing this game, but now it just looks stupid.
SwissCheese707 3 months ago
@SwissCheese707
The Churchills front armor was 102mm thick in the front.......
And I own both CoH, and CoH: OF, great games.
SpadXIIIFlyer 3 months ago
@SpadXIIIFlyer Doesn't matter. The Panther's really long, accurate high velocity cannon's AP round can penetrate 400MM. If i could capitalize 400 to show emphasis on that, I would.
SwissCheese707 3 months ago
@SwissCheese707
Still, its a RTS, balance is a must
SpadXIIIFlyer 3 months ago
@SpadXIIIFlyer The Allies did win the war, so just give the axis far superior tanks, but harder to get, and allies far inferior tanks but much easier to accquire. That should be enough balance. Churchill (almost) never beats Panther 1 on 1. Or even 4 on 1 for that matter.
SwissCheese707 3 months ago
@SwissCheese707
Stil doesnt take away from the game.
SpadXIIIFlyer 3 months ago
@SwissCheese707 its a stategy game that uses the setting of WW2, it does not attempt to simulate it. get over it.
jokecukie 2 months ago
@SwissCheese707 400mm? Are you on crack? Even the 17 Pounders APDS shot (Which had superior penetration to any round the the L/70 could fire.) Only penetrated half of that at 500m, Claiming the L/70 could penetrate 400mm with standard AP is just laughably wrong.
mynameistoolonglol 1 week ago
@mynameistoolonglol I don't know what I was thinking when I said that, but the Armor Piercing Discarding Sabot (APDS) Fired by the Panther penetrates 298mm.
SwissCheese707 1 week ago
to brong down 1 panther use 3 -4 tanks but if it has 3-4 panther....
norasethyb 4 months ago
Panther player is just a retard. :P
jeebateeba56 5 months ago
Noooooooo. I love Panthers :(
kpbotbot 5 months ago
Nicely done mate. The opposing player was a retard, he should have accompanied the Panther with a recon unit as a probe to avoid silly ambushes like this. Bravo!
Abbaddon09 5 months ago
i must say it isn´t a trap but well done ;)
RealHeima 6 months ago
the churchill probley was thinking "man i didn't sigh up for this crap
MrMisterchicken 8 months ago
Good work on using the speed of the firefly to outflank the Panther!
BenTheBozer 8 months ago
I hate british tanks,so weak and the cost tons of fuel and MP...firefly can be only good used on the open fields cuz they have the biggest range in game except 88 and AT I think but their arrmor sux. Brits are so lame agains tanks :(
MatuSSisko 8 months ago
Very good, the churchill absorbs the fire, damages the engine and the firefly flanks the panther to finish it off.
nick7sikkema 8 months ago
Axis armor will prevail!
SturmgeschutzlV 8 months ago
oh wow, what a genious "trap"
plasteber 10 months ago 2
nice....feels aways good to kill a panther
Criticalperspective2 10 months ago
i hate it how the panther drives up on the churchill. ignoring its gun range.
luuko656 11 months ago
anyone want to play coh via hamachi
try this room
room name:C.O.H.1 password:123456
All are welcomed to join
Raednagm 11 months ago
"haha the churchill is history...WTF"
warhead2121 11 months ago
was that AI cz he sucks
queenlives4ever 11 months ago
one of the panther crew was siting on a tire xD
lacrimassprofundere 1 year ago
And if he has 2 panthers....you're screwed.
AdamSavage88 1 year ago
i love COH online don't even let us have sherman fly flies
EdgewaterUSMCJROTC 1 year ago
red orchestra shits on this game
rolficus 1 year ago
@rolficus AMEN!!! but RO is a fps simulation. I have played mods where they make coh realistic, and they suck. Its not even and the game just does not work. (and 1 stug can beat like an entire sherman army, but thats real life for ya)
AdamSavage88 1 year ago
@AdamSavage88 This game isn't realistic mate.This game is realistic in the same way that OFP: Red River is realistic. Men of War is the realistic RTS.
Terrr05 6 months ago
@Terrr05 No, Men of war is not that realistic. All it did was add a whole lot of things that can get damaged, and it makes people think its realistic. Realistic is a t-34 never being able to kill a panther/tiger at anymore than 2 feet away, in real life the jagdtiger could kill any tank at any range. But its not like that because then allies will say germany is OP. Its impossible to make a realistic ww2 game without having more allied players than axis.
AdamSavage88 6 months ago
@AdamSavage88 Tigers DO dominate other tanks in Men of War. People don't think the game's realistic because some buildings can be destroyed, people think it's realistic because enemies can be killed with one shot. As can most vehicles, provided you hit a weak spot. Just like real life. I'm no tank expert, but I'm sure AP rounds aimed at a tank's engine, even now a days, would put that tank out of action.
Terrr05 6 months ago
Comment removed
AdamSavage88 6 months ago
@Terrr05 I was not talking about the tiger.... I am talking about the jagdtiger. The tank with 10 inch front armor, a 12.5 cm main gun and i think 7 in side armor and an accurate gun range of 20,000 meters( 22,000 meters top range). It was the heaviest and most powerful tank serviced in ww2. And when shooting the, rounds bounce off the IS class soviet tanks. The is-2 (heaviest soviet tank) had, at thickest, 6 inch armor. The panthers gun could penetrate that. Games have to be balanced...
AdamSavage88 6 months ago
@AdamSavage88 Christ, just don't put such a vehicle in the game then. Even still, use an aeroplane to knock it out, use your smarts and lay AT mines, use a faster vehicle to out manoeuvre it and shoot it from behind; there are a lot of ways around a big gun. My point still stands that MoW is far more realistic than CoH.
Terrr05 6 months ago
@Terrr05 I dont think u see my point. The StuG (with a weak gun compared to other German tanks) could penetrate 80mm or armor at 1000 yards. That's every allied tank except the Russian heavies.So, in order to be realistic, the stug should 1 hit kill every tank in the game, except the soviet heavies, and every western allied tanks because in the game you dont fight at thousands of yards distances. Should they just leave that tank out too? Coh is less "realistic" but its more fun IMO.
AdamSavage88 6 months ago
@AdamSavage88 Really couldn't care less right now mate. 80mm this, 100mm that, 20k yards there; 1 shot at a weakpoint on a vehicle will put it out of action, just as 1 shot from a rifle will incapacitate a rifleman in MoW. This is why MoW is realistic. I don't think RTS battles would work at extreme ranges, so in that regard, I fully expect it to be unrealistic.
Terrr05 6 months ago
@Terrr05 MoW is not realistic. No game is. Oh if you are stupid fanboy trying to satisfy his ego; yes in terms of gameplay it is more realistic. Now you can sleep well.
ViperCanel 3 months ago
@ViperCanel Cheers, three months have passed since I last thought of this conversation but I've spent the entire time wondering why I struggle to sleep at night. Finally, I feel like a new man. At last I'll be able to sleep well again, thank you so much. Seriously though, I don't get what the point of leaving that message was other than to troll. Nothing I said had anything to do with you, but you still decide to get all pissy with me the first time you say anything to me. Leave me alone.
Terrr05 3 months ago
@Terrr05 Lol, look at the guy calling me troll! Trying to point out how realistich MoW IN A COH VIDEO! That is trolling. Also I didn't get pissy at you. I agree with you MoW having a much more realistic core gameplay. I just don't like the fact, fanboys like you love to come to game videos to point out how the thing they play is superior. You know what that is called? That is just weak. Sorry to have awakened you from the depths. I realized the date after finishing. I am happy I was helpful :D
ViperCanel 3 months ago
@ViperCanel 1. I replied to a message talking about RO apparently shitting on this game. I didn't watch this video to leave a snotty message. 2. I own this game, and I enjoy it, so don't throw that fanboy card at me because you couldn't be more wrong if you tried. 3. Get the fuck off my case. You don't know anything about me, so please stop making assumptions.
Terrr05 3 months ago
@Terrr05 I just can't read every goddamn comment you made and spend hours on character analyzing. I just read your last few comments, replying your argument contained in them; and the last comment you made have no difference from the characteristics of MoW fanboy comments who occasionally visit CoH videos to troll. It is good then if you are not one of them, because I am tired of them shitting game videos.
ViperCanel 3 months ago
@ViperCanel I told you, nothing I said to that other guy had anything to do with you. Mind your own business. Also, everything I said was pretty reasonable and legitimate. MoW IS more realistic than CoH. And I've never said or suggested that MoW is a splitting image of real life or better than CoH either. The irony of your "I hope that one day my brothers will descend upon the puppet masters of false-righteousness and eradicate them from this planet" spiel is staggering, by the way.
Terrr05 3 months ago
@rolficus Dude, theyre not even the same type of game. COH= RTS, Red Orchestra=FPS. You cant compare them
DatAwkwardWhale 1 year ago
i have how unbalanced tanks are in this game, it could be so much better
EonFigure 1 year ago
0.25 "Its a trap!!"
warhead2121 1 year ago
Gotta love the armour on those Churchills.
cpreston5 1 year ago
hate when tanks have to come so close to each other that they can shoot
GuitarsBlood 1 year ago
fail the churchil would have been destroyed in a instant had that been real lol c'mon i would have been pissed just to see the tank take the shot like ha ha ha i'm still alive! wtf
1
JARman711 1 year ago
Does this work on Windows 7????
fallschirmjager0000 1 year ago
@fallschirmjager0000 yep i'm playin it =)
habbo19922 1 year ago
great quality
LegitBacKd00rNiNJa69 1 year ago
this game look really really fucking fun. do you have to have a really expensive PC to play?
raptorman120 1 year ago
@raptorman120 no
jakep121 1 year ago
kornholio and Vipercanal you 2 are both faggot fanboys. please calm the f down or take it to the private messages.
ARomanianKid14 1 year ago
which video tajet do you have?
patotas666 1 year ago
men of war is better
Guynumber7 1 year ago
@Guynumber7 just got the game. i would pick men of war for large scale battles, but company of heroes for the more fun based. men of war takes too much micromanagement to just get a few infantry teams to attack a fortified position.
ARomanianKid14 1 year ago
Cool video,havent played it in ages tho sadly.
murderdoll9191 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Korn1holio No one wants your opinion here about what owns what. As someone already stated, this is a place for ones who either LIKE CoH and wants to enjoy watching its videos, or for those who are curious about it. Please discuss these meaningless remarks in a FORUM. This is not the place. In addition to that CoH is 3 years older than MoW, you should judge games according to their release date.
ViperCanel 1 year ago
There is nothing better (when playing as an Ally) than knocking out a Panther or Tiger.
VitaminsAndPiss 1 year ago
And that is why panthers should never be alone.
CallofDaniel 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Can anyone help? I'm just now installint CoH, and haven't had it on my pc for awhile. It's gold adition. I try to sign in to RelicOnline, but it says a patch is required for online, so I click ok. It says it's done downloading and click ok to close game and install patch. So I do, but It says there is an error with part of the patch. I try to download it multiple times without any successes. Please help.
lovelife921 1 year ago
I think I shall try this
CherokeeJohnny6 1 year ago
Men of War owns CoH, I'm sorry to say.
I was expecting CoH to provide me with the same level of tactical immersion, but it happened to be simply stripped down Red Alert-clone in WWII setting.
Korn1holio 1 year ago
@Korn1holio I dont think that in Red Alert are things like Pinning down infantry, Rear,Side armor or possibility of not hitting an object.....
JohnClaimesh 1 year ago
@JohnClaimesh
you're right I was too harsh on CoH
still I don't like it for being too "arcadish"
Korn1holio 1 year ago
@Korn1holio No one wants your opinion here about what owns what. As someone already stated, this is a place for ones who either LIKE CoH and wants to enjoy watching its videos, or for those who are curious about it. Please discuss these meaningless remarks in a FORUM. This is not the place. In addition to that CoH is 3 years older than MoW, you should judge games according to their release date.
ViperCanel 1 year ago
@ViperCanel
MOW is actually an expansion. Expansion for game Faces of War which was released as far back as 2006. So no, it's not newer than CoH in any way.
I don't consider my remarks "meaningless", they do have some meaning - I'm comparing two rather similar games. WTF about this being a place only for people who LIKE COH? You're not from some ex-communist country are you? :)
Korn1holio 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Korn1holio No one wants your opinion here about what owns what. As someone already stated, this is a place for ones who either LIKE CoH and wants to enjoy watching its videos, or for those who are curious about it. Please discuss these meaningless remarks in a FORUM. This is not the place. In addition to that CoH is 3 years older than MoW, you should judge games according to their release date.
ViperCanel 1 year ago
@Korn1holio I must add that CoH is more liked. You can check that in GameSpot very easily. Even the number of reviews of different sources, which is something like 50 for Coh, and 10 for MoW shows that. The MoW can be more tactical, as it is 3 years "younger", but the illusion is created by its "excessive micromanagement." In real "tactical" wars of world, people did not have "inventories" my dear friend. People are not cupboards. When your rifle was broken you would just take your dead friend's
ViperCanel 1 year ago
@ViperCanel
and Harry Potter outsells Shakespeare, so what.
In real wars, my friend, you're absolutely right people can ditch their rifle and take some SMG from the fallen enemy. They can also carry two weapons in case one fails. Can you do that in CoH? This is what I thought..
Korn1holio 1 year ago
@Korn1holio and move on. Do not forget that CoH is the name which brought about tactical warfare into RTS genre. If you try to look not-fanboyishly you will see advancement of genres proceed with every good game adding some bricks to the wall. The next game produced gets the good qualities of the older ones and improves them, while also adding their own innovations. So MoW owes most of its aspects to previous games as well.
ViperCanel 1 year ago
@ViperCanel
may I remind that MoW was preceded by Soldiers: Heroes of World War II from which it inherited all it's traits. And this game dates back to 2004. MoW didn't copy a single thing from CoH, I believe, while CoH obviously copied the "direct control" mode from MOW (and SHWWII).
CoH has better publicity that's for sure.
Korn1holio 1 year ago
@Korn1holio I share your thoughts about Red Alert having no tactics compared to today's games, but as stated when you judge it in its time period you can see that it was one of the most innovative games of those days. Also I must add that "arcade" is required in every game since we need it to have fun, as we play to have fun. (please read the rest at Gamespot as I am having problems with Youtube, also sorry if you get too much clones of a reply because of the problem)
ViperCanel 1 year ago
never attack with tanks, if their unsupprted
Norguy77 1 year ago
wheres the trap ?
kaakje9 1 year ago
They made the Panther follow the Churchill in the range of AT guns... nicely done !
oOCrossroadsOo 1 year ago
@kaakje9, the guy that recorded this is the BRITISH. he lured the panther in and had a 17-pounder gun + a sherman firefly sitting right there waiting to kill it.
holycrapith 1 year ago
@MagicSnipe sorry but the churchil had 107mm of frontal armor (mk3) the 88mm had a hard time penetrating anything over 105mm
the pershing wasnt able to survive the 88 till much later in the war and russian heavy tanks thats kinda what they were meant to do
cammanderWho 2 years ago
102mm to be excact
tradezero 2 years ago
@tradezero thx
cammanderWho 2 years ago
The Churchill was main based in africa there wasn't much 88 like in europe!
P214Stearman 1 year ago
@cammanderWho----- i have to say that the churchill SUCKS in this game because of its slow speed and weak main gun. BUT what it lacks in weapons and speed it makes up for in armor. however, armor doesnt really help it when there are 5 enmy tanks shooting at it.
just my opinion.
holycrapith 1 year ago
@holycrapith The Churchill is meant to be an infantry tank specifically... it's basically a slow, beefy Cromwell that can crush things. The only real AT tank the Brits have is the Firefly... Not to say you can't kill a King Tiger with a well-placed Cromwell (Not bragging or anything)
thatianguy 1 year ago
and most of the Panthers wouldve been smoked by roving Thunderbolts and Typhoons before they ever reached the front. Its a game. Relax.
thepiespy88 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I pwn u 1on1 bitch
rfmcorporation 2 years ago
You're both right. At that range, initial hits from each tank respectively would have been deathblows. Either way, it was a neat to watch.
MicheasTheMighty 2 years ago 3
The Churchill should have been obliterated by the Panthers first round... totally unrealistic...
DigbyCat 2 years ago
The same should have happened with the first round of the firefly towards panther.
Yiannis566 2 years ago
True, I agree with you there... One thing for sure, I would not have been happy being in any off those tanks during WW2
DigbyCat 2 years ago
I agree, the churchill wouldn't stand a chance.
Gestapo1940 2 years ago
Eh? Relic prioritize game balance over realism.
SADFEETFEAR 2 years ago 14
yep sadly
ShadowSpeedy7 2 years ago
Yes that will be a good game if every unit died after every shoot.
Great Idea
sewagii 2 years ago 20
@sewagii, I have to agree with you on that one. It seems that all the weapons in this game need to have more firepower.....
holycrapith 1 year ago
@sewagii so it is much funnier watching a panther and a sherman shoot at eachother for an hour? -___-
cuzgandalfgothigh99 8 months ago
@sewagii
Blitzkrieg mod :) check it out.
ScorpyEmp21 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DigbyCat dude churchil could take a 88mm round from the tiger at point blank range
cammanderWho 2 years ago
sherman firefly FTW
il4ack 2 years ago
nice!
keithehlert 2 years ago
i esp. love playin on mp, love seein the other dudes reaction wen he gets stung by a trap
AlikSong 2 years ago
GO AMERICAN TANK!!!
indianajoneszilla 2 years ago
With awesome British gun. The hull itself is paper thin.
SyberSid 2 years ago
Nice, gotta love the FireFly.
I thought about it in the past and the fact the game is not realistic (altough more realistic than some other RTSs) bothered me a bit, but the fact the this game is so good and superb made not to care about this.
CoH rules.
Dvich 2 years ago
yeah man but theres mods out there where the tank and other guns range and damage is increased.
stupidstufwtmyfriend 2 years ago
Some things aren't quite realistic yeah (like the armored vehicles can be taken down by gunfire and so on) , but most of the time the game's pretty close to realistic
xxxchaosmagexxx 2 years ago
this is shit... thx for the upload
Yurik0Omega 2 years ago
You suckered him!
Anthrax92007 2 years ago
man of war is the best .......coh sucks exampl;.tiger needs 2shoots for an bren carrier.wtf.........thats stupid
Franzlandser 2 years ago
did you hear about gamebalance? and its still a game.
Brato86 2 years ago
after playing Men of War Coh seems so motherfucking stupid. Tank health bars,LOL
adrian15041994 2 years ago
umm yeah to take care if ur tank dip shit
luian90 2 years ago
sorry, im not from the us so i dont understand your expression :(
adrian15041994 2 years ago
It's not an American expression, you just don't speak English well. I'm not American and I know what he's saying perfectly (oh, and i agree with him). Go troll somewhere else, this is a CoH video. If you want to jack off your Men of War buddies go to a Men of War videos.
SolomonJonesIsBack 2 years ago
LOL making a game a GAME instead of a war simulator is so stupid, right? Look at the reviews, look at the sales, CoH is the better game. Realism doesn't determine a game's quality.
SolomonJonesIsBack 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
how old are you may i ask? looks you're just another COH fanboy, just like i was(i admit it, please try a game before trashing it please). Also show some respect to other people. i can almost assure that you are barely sociable in real life.
adrian15041994 2 years ago
How about show some respect to everyone else here? This video was uploaded so those who enjoy COH can watch and for those who hasn't played can see what the gameplay is like. Throwing a comment like that in here doesn't serve any "sociable" purpose.
If you don't like it, rate the video, leave a comment and move on. There' s no need to call people names here.
Kenjaiz 2 years ago 45
@Kenjaiz But you see, I claim to be able to debunk the realism of a game that documents a war I haven't fought in. Like everyone here - All we know is what has been written/told to us, the game is a game, not a historical documentation of the war, we can't judge it's realism. What is the benchmark for a 'realistic' war game? Especially from someone who hasn't fired a weapon in anger?
I agree with you mate.
Abbaddon09 5 months ago
Wow, nice psychoanalysis, Dr. Adrian. Can I see your PhD? Show respect? Did you even read what YOU wrote? You said "Coh seems so motherfucking stupid". LOL, you don't seem fanboyish at all, doctor. 22 if you have to know, and you have NO place calling anyone a fanboy.
Realism doesn't mean shit to the quality of a game. Super Mario World is one of the best games ever and it's not realistic at all; why does the fact that CoH isn't realistic make it not as good as MoW(I've played both, MoW sucks
SolomonJonesIsBack 2 years ago
@adrian15041994 are you really that immature as to say that? People just dont respect each other anymore...
holycrapith 1 year ago
@holycrapith i actually played COH a few days ago and i kind of iked it. I dont think its a good idea to reply to comment so old as mine, as much can happen in th meantime :) Sorry if my comment in any way offended you ^^
adrian15041994 1 year ago
@adrian15041994
oh sorry man, i forgot to look at the date it was posted....
just a tip; YOU vs. 4 EXPERTS = not fun
holycrapith 1 year ago
@holycrapith What do you mean by experts? Your voice and opinion isnt more valuable than mine, or the other way around. Better say"YOU vs. 4 COH players in a COH video=fail"
adrian15041994 1 year ago
how did u put it in youtube...I have many wonderful recorded matches that I want to put on youtube but I dont know how....can u plz tell me
Sleepingduringduty 2 years ago
I used a program called FRAPS that can capture videos. Only the full version of the software allows you to capture in this resolution.
I then converted the file to a more comprised version using either TMPG Enc or AVS Video Converter (makes upload quicker).
Kenjaiz 2 years ago
@Sleepingduringduty id ask the same
connorseries 1 year ago
whts the best graphic card for coh and dawn of war 2 (warhammer 40'000)
TheShreder09 2 years ago
GTX 260 and HD4850 will probably run it on max. GTX 280 and HD4890 if you want to be sure. But seriously... only the slightest bit of effort typing google[dot]com followed by coh/dow2 benchmarks and you'ld know the answer already. Why are I even replying to you?
CrzayMazy 2 years ago
evga gtx 295
richy123xd 2 years ago
i run it on 2 9800gtx's with full graphics and runs great
clickingclock 2 years ago
EVGA GTX 295 coop edition
richy123xd 2 years ago
hardly any tigers were made
smith3451 2 years ago
about 3000 i think :D which still isnt tht many as there was 3 fronts and the russians made 15000 t34s haha
mike44wo 2 years ago
1000 tigers ,50000 t34 and 48000 shermans
mlosmlos 2 years ago
Wrong, there were over 90,000 t34s made in WWII and later.
vicskyline9 2 years ago
Shermans FTW!!!!
seanyboy842x 2 years ago
tommy cooker
Brato86 2 years ago
There were 1350 Tiger Is produced, although some report 1500. Just under 600 Tiger IIs were produced. All good and fun they were meant for uber pwnage, but 1 hardcore gamer can't take on 100 noobs at the same time. The same was with the Tiger I and II, they were just too difficult to produce.
CrzayMazy 2 years ago 9
Haha, great analogy.
Packersfan303 2 years ago
yep also to complex to maintain and repair sometimes =p and most of them were killing themselfs meaning the tank was too heavy for its susspention or engine to pull... but in the end the german tanks were aimed at perfection witch they achieved , but the allies tanks were ment for mass production same with the soviets.. and that proved to be the key strategy in the end :P
Scelenaarwen 2 years ago 3
to this day german people have chosen quality over quantity, we see that on ww2 tanks and we see that on modern day cars
doippa123 2 years ago
The Firefly could have been hidden behind the building, suddenly coming out and destroying the Panther... That would be first of all much more stylish and second much more effective...
Pupca6 2 years ago
i don't get it
queenlives4ever 2 years ago
i play all settings ultra :P Nvidia 9800Gtx+ intel core 2 duo 3.2Ghz 8gb Ram
puurube 2 years ago
that's fascinating
ozzyguy67 2 years ago
i play all settings lowest, even f00king sound
ian123412 2 years ago 3
lolool same here. FCKING LAPTOP!
vicskyline9 2 years ago
Meh, 9800gtx? uses old G92 Chip. thats BS.
vicskyline9 2 years ago
Well Dennis484 as far as i know the Tiger tank (Axis) was the most produced tank. It was made for the wars against Sovjet union. But maybe we are both right.
Thedark008 2 years ago
Tiger 1 was made 1 500 Sherman M4 were made over 49 000 thousend...
There is your much made Tiger.
lazuka12 2 years ago
The german tanks was not better than the allieds tanks, Axis was known for their tanks, but not how good the tanks were, it was because they were so easy to produce and because they had such a massive numbers of them. But yes i do agree Allies are better than Axis in the CoH.
Thedark008 2 years ago
Thedark008 i think you got it backwards. The Allies had tanks that where easy to produce. German tanks were more complex and more expensive. Yeah they did have alot of armor but most of it was old and obsolete.
Dennis484 2 years ago
lol stupid comment dude.
jagdtiger88mm 2 years ago
-.-'' The allied tanks during ww2 were smaller in size and armor/ firepower capabilities were reduced due to the fact that had to be TRANSPORTED to the front the german tanks were more complex and tougher they lacked the speed of the allied tanks but the firepower and armor were clearly superior. (sherman-tiger comparison)
Blackzjeh 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
That Axis player was a retard, but then again everyone knows Allies are OP in this game. Their only defence is "ITS A GAME SO IT SHOULDN'T BE REALISTIC!!"... so its ok then if the Axis get trenches and 17 pounders because its a game?
Taramriel 2 years ago
you sure are ignorant or just fucking stupid
dinodude119 2 years ago 3
i use the same tatics against pathers .tigers and king tigers.i use a churchhill or two to take them front on as they have heavy amour(use hull down ) and use my cromells with flankspeed and take the rear of german heavy tanks works everytime .
nash3timemvp 3 years ago 2
das geile ist ja es kommt so rüber als hätte son schwuler firefly irgend ne chance gehabt gegen nen panther xD
PIMP89ii 3 years ago 5
lol
xNexus65x 2 years ago
Nice tactics
dsnoman24 3 years ago
shoulda buttoned it
flyboy92 3 years ago
17 pouner wayy oveprowered!
CoolKidX85 3 years ago
Yeah, it might not be able to beat a Panther or a Tiger, but it could at least stand it's ground untill backup arrived, which is more than a Sherman could do. They were also a lot less prone to "Brewing up" (catching fire). The British army called Shermans "Ronsons" After a popular brand of Cigarette lighter (Lights first time, every time)!
Karagianis 3 years ago
ah the churchill tank..gotta love it
121Swaleskid 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
what an irreal game. a Panther with his high velocity L/70 75mm gun could penetrate that crappy churchill at ranges over 1500m, and here about 10meters he couldn't....
tonidmc 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Not to mentino a rear shot?!? Oh please, make them real. Then we can see who is a better commander. But as the game is now, is little difference to Starcraft. (from the point of view of basic ideea: colect resurce, spend them on tech and units...)
nyctasiaselesq 3 years ago