Company of Heroes: Opposing Fronts Review

Because the other two fronts got along so well.

Version tested: PC

The British - tea-drinking, moustache-twirling nancy-boys. Usually dastardly, or at the very least conniving. This much, Hollywood and games have taught us. Clearly, uber-RTS developers Relic have spent some time hanging out at branches of Wetherspoons, as they've managed to paint a rather more accurate portrait of the denizens of our sceptered isle, whose forces make up one of the two new factions in this World War II RTS 'expandalone'. Apparently, we're incredibly foul-mouthed, angry and violent. Sounds about right, really. Though I did hear at least one cutscene mention putting the kettle on.

While some may be mortified by the plucky Brits' stiff upper lips uttering such unpleasantness, I can't tell you how relieved I am to not hear some hackneyed "Jolly good, let's go show them what-for, what? Fnarr Fnarr" soundbyte when I select a unit. "Let's show these F*@#ING WANKERS!", bellowed with the full, furious force of a beefy cabbie who's just been dinged by a scrawny, bug-eyed tracksuit kid in a Ford Escort, really puts the spirit of war into me.

And what a joy they are to play as, too. Turtling, the RTS practice of building up a heavily defended base and waiting for the enemy to wear itself out trying to break in before you go for them, is still considered a bit dirty in some quarters. Like it's not really playing along. Most RTS games will have a faction that's a bit better defensively than offensively, but it tends to be a polite tip of the hat to the practice rather than a passionate bearhug. This is the bearhug.

The Brits are an incredible turtle race. Weak for much of the early game, digging in and setting up a defensive line is critical. Their build-'em-anywhere trenches, for instance - such a simple technology, but you can't really beat a dirty great hole in the ground for keeping bullets away from your face. Even the most basic infantry becomes devastatingly effective in a trench, as only incendiary attacks can realistically clear them out. Otherwise, they'll just keep on chipping away at whatever's fruitlessly trying to blow them away, an often insurmountable barrier to a vital victory point.

'Company of Heroes: Opposing Fronts' Screenshot 1

Brits are supported by Canadian infantry. As I'm a British journalist positively reviewing a game developed in Canada, this is much the same as risking my life for the freedom of Europe.

Somewhere at the back of the sector, the uniquely British Captain and Lieutenants lurk, passively generating major buffs to any friendly units. Meantime, Sappers - a sort of engineer/anti-tank hybrid - will be setting up turrets, having access to the game's best selection of fixed anti-vehicle big guns. Pretty soon, there's enough resources in the bank to build Howitzers, and from thereon in, the nature of the Brits changes. Stupidly damaging and stupidly long-ranged, the switch to artillery enables a remote near-wipeout of their foes without the Limeys having to send a single man into harm's way. Or they do, but they do it with gliders, crashing great metal birds behind enemy lines which then spew Commandos - or even, if you've chosen the appropriate upgrade options, tanks right into the enemy's weak spots.

I'm not prone to patriotism, but these British make me oddly proud. We won the war. Yeah! We didn't need those damn Yanks' help. Yeah! F*@#ing wankers. There's a complex art to using them, and online matches will see the Axis forces fixated on preventing the artillery going up, which will make playing British something of an endurance test for the earlier stages. If survived though, that switch from panicked brickies to WAR MACHINE makes them Company of Heroes' most exhilarating side to date.

Which rather ill-favours the other new recruits, the German Panzer Elite. Like the Brits, they're based around a fresh principle rather than repeating an existing faction but with new hats. In this case, they're a fast anti-tank and anti-infantry side, sacrificing the heavy armour to saturate the field with panzershrecks, light vehicles and tankbusters. It's an effective approach, particularly against COH vanilla's tank-heavy Americans, once you've gotten your head around it, but they're a much less accessible side to play as than the others. Even once you do, though they have their moments they lack the "bloody look at that!" element of the hilariously excessive Brits.

'Company of Heroes: Opposing Fronts' Screenshot 2

Gliders release Commandos, who are devastatingly powerful against almost anything, and are, if anything, even more sweary than the standard soldiers.

They're a bit weird, even. In contrast to the Brits, they're fantastic in the early game, able to immediately spew out fast (but weaponless) scout vehicles capable of claiming territories. Half the map will have turned their colour before the British have got their first Sapper out of the door. After that, the micro-managment gets pretty heavy. Repair and munitions vehicles need to accompany the fighty ones out to front lines, Panzergrendiers require multiple upgrades to turn into the powerhouses they need to be, and there's an emphasis on pairing certain units together. It's all hugely effective, more than a match for the Brits, when played with complete understanding and careful strategy, but I worry it robs CoH just a little of its crossover appeal. The Brits contribute to this too - the micro-management across the board is a wee bit heavier, and anyone who found COH vanilla involved a tad too much pressing of very specific buttons will find this far more demanding.

I'm not speaking to the CoH hardcore with this, for they have their own complaints. A vocal section of the community who've been on the Opposing Fronts beta have publicly expressed dissatisfaction. This surprised me at first as, though OF may be a bit more of a turn-off for the madding crowd, in most ways it would seem to a glorious reinvention for anyone who adores CoH, shoving in fresh ideas to make a splendidly varied game. Some of their complaints centre around bugs and multiplayer connection problems; I've not noticed any howlers myself, but can't totally attest to online stability until the game's out with the public at large. Their other issue is balance, and that's where, much as I respect their concerns, I entirely disagree.

Yes, there will almost inevitably be some imbalance. It's an unavoidable side-effect of making CoH so proudly asymmetrical. The US and Germans in the original game had their differences, but the underlying mechanics were the same. Give or take the odd ability, they felt pretty equal. The Brits and Panzers are so different, both from the preceding classes and from each other, that it is rather tricky to believe the playing field is level. And it probably isn't, but not significantly.

Generally, I don't condone relying on patch to fix problems, but it's the nature of the beast for RTS games. Warcraft III still recieves irregular balance patches, for instance. If the numbers need to be changed, the numbers will be changed. I don't feel anyone should be worried on that front; there may be an element of confusing imbalance with asymmetry behind these complaints. I completely understand - thinking another player has an advantage over me brings the red mist. I've said all manner of incredibly rude things about Snipers in Team Fortress 2 whenever my Heavy suddenly falls over, for instance. Give this a chance, though. The massive differences between factions are what make Opposing Fronts so interesting, and I'm a little disappointed in anyone who claims otherwise. We don't all need to have the same haircut to have fun.

That aside, like COH, OF is at its absolute best in multiplayer. The constant and vibrant push-me, pull-you of the frontline, each player forever unleashing new party tricks on the other, keeps this a lordly distance away from the usual 'just go for the power stations' RTS squabbles. Victory - glory! - comes from being genuinely clever and attentive here, not from being the guy who knows all the keyboard shortcuts off by heart. Again though, it's now much more complicated than before, so casual players are in for quite some punishment during their first babysteps in online trenches.

'Company of Heroes: Opposing Fronts' Screenshot 3

You'll believe a tank can fly.

Which leaves the singleplayer; while narrative in first-person shooters continues to grown into a big, strong lad, thanks to the storytelling efforts of clever fellows like Valve and Irrational, the RTS solo campaign is a withered and neglected creature these days. COH's singplayer was a little plain; OF's is definitely better, making more effort with the interlinking cutscenes (or at least being more memorable thanks to all the naughty words) and, notably, splitting the campaign into two. There's one for Brits, and one for the Panzer Elite, the latter documenting the Allied cock-up that was Operation Market Garden from the Axis perspective.

The campaigns certainly work in terms of patiently presenting the key mechanics of the new factions, but there isn't a huge drive to wade through the lot, having the new toys gradually eked out to you, when you know full well you could just go and have access to the full explodiness right away in a skirmish map. There's none of C&C 3's excitedly wondering how bloody Kane escaped certain death again or what those aliens really want, for instance. Curse World War II history for being so unchangeable. If singleplayer is what you're most interested in COHOF for, you'll be entertained, but not enraptured. It's polished and fun, and has clearly has a lot of effort put into it, but nevertheless feels like an optional sidedish to the multiplayer or skirmish main.

What a multiplayer game it is, though. No other RTS provokes the feeling that you're inventing rather than enduring to defeat your foe to this extent. It's complicated and exhausting with it, and while that's exactly what an established COH player will want, I fear it ever so slightly undermines the achievements the original game made in making historical wargames appeal to a mass audience again. It's not the pure, easy entrypoint into real-time strategy that is parent was, despite admirably being standalone (you won't have access to the original two factions if you don't have COH vanilla, mind) . Don't, for God's sake, let that stop you if you've even a glimmer of interest in playing this. If you're a COH player and you don't pick this up, then, as my plucky Sappers would put it, you're a f*@#ing wanker.

8 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy

Comments (25) Latest comment 4 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • ElBurninator #1 4 years ago

    With this and world in conflict I wont get out the house..
  • Dixons #2 4 years ago

    This has me motivated to go back to the first one and finish it. It's not that I didn't like it because I did. A lot. But so many games, so little time.
  • Dynamize #3 4 years ago

  • Verwandlung #4 4 years ago

    Looks like just what I need.
  • UncleLou #5 4 years ago

    Sounds too good to resist. Bit stupidly released so shortly after the not entirely dissimilar World in Conflict, but anyway.
  • Metalfish #6 4 years ago

    Yep, this is getting bought.
  • MGG #7 4 years ago

    I love RTS games and bought the original of this with great anticipation.

    That was some months ago, and I have yet to load it up for the 2nd time. Is it just me judging it too quickly, or was it really just another "same as all the rest" RTS game? There didn't seem to be any great innovation barring slightly better graphics - but still the same old traditional viewpoint. *Yawn*.

    Mind saying that, the last RTS to really grab me (in the "my god I've just lost 5 hours of my life" style) was Rise of Nations. Hmmmm.
  • skillian #8 4 years ago

    Despite all the great games released recently/releasing soon, this is number 1 on my list. The original was definitely my GOTY, and still my most played game.

    World in Conflict was released and finally gave me something to play other than CoH, and now this comes along.

    Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in...
  • UncleLou #9 4 years ago

    That was you judging it a bit too quickly, yes. While it steals a lot from its predecessor Dawn of War, it's still a different game than, say, the Age of Empires series or Rise of Nations. It's a tactical game which is all about the combat - taking cover, using special weapons, that sort of thing, and is in that respect a lot deeper than most other RTS games, while being lighter on the "strategy" front, if you want.

    I am not quite sure what you have against the viewpoint though. There just isn't a better one for strategy games, really. While World in Conflict is a top game and incredibly pretty, the constant controlling of the camera can become a bit annoying.
  • FlamingCarrot #10 4 years ago

    World in Conflict has my full attention at the moment - quite superb and looks stunning. Almost too many things to look at / room in on. Do love COH though.
  • Triggerhappytel #11 4 years ago

    Can we have a console version of this?

    Please? I know it'll sell fuck all, but I'd get it when I eventually go next-gen.
  • captain_cupcake #12 4 years ago

    COH, still played so much, and I'm so looking forward to playing this.

    With World in Conflict coming too, it's going to be a good day tomorrow (and it's my birthday \o/)

    Terry Thomas the proofreader says: "singplayer" 3rd para from end ;)
  • Mechstra #13 4 years ago

    I'm really not sure how Company of Heroes would be transferred to consoles, mainly due to controls. Oh, you could get a keyboard/mouse addition for it but with usual gamepads it'd be a nightmare to play it. I know some RTS games have been cross-developed (or singularly developed) for consoles and have worked fine, but I can't see Company of Heroes working. It needs a lot of fine touches and lightning reactions that would be hard to get with analogue sticks and a few buttons.
  • souljah #14 4 years ago

    Opposing Fronts Fronts?

    I think you're fronting a bit too much there!

    :)
  • skillian #15 4 years ago

    I like to defend whilst building up a zillion tanks/tesla men etc

    From the review , it sounds like you might enjoy using the British team more than the previous options. Though I'm sure you'll still have to push or harass to some extent, I doubt you'll just be able to sit back completely and build.
  • Dire #16 4 years ago

    I'm sorry to say but relic online sucks ass and ruins an otherwise fantastic multiplayer experience
  • Mechstra #17 4 years ago

    I've actually never had a problem with Relic Online, and I've used it a lot over the past year. It certainly beats the hell out of Gamespy.
  • lambtron #18 4 years ago

    "It certainly beats the hell out of Gamespy."

    That's not saying much :p
  • Skurmedel #19 4 years ago

    This is evil - I've got WiC (played one MP match), BioShock (gotten like to the third area), Halo 3 (not even opened) and this comes along, sigh, I'll just have to finish the other three first, but I only have two days every week to spend with my gaming equipment :(...
    Edited by 1 at 27/09/07 @ 20:32
  • Pablo2k5 #20 4 years ago

    "conniving" now there's a word I haven't heard in a while. Nice one.
  • UncleLou #21 4 years ago

    Meh@Steam, I thought I could get it from there, but they still haven't got a release date up, and it's still has a placeholder $99 price.
  • KARLOFF #22 4 years ago

    Dunkel, you'll definitely like the British then. Speaking solely from the beta (though not much could have changed, surely?) they're incredibly turtlish. You cap a couple of points to get started and then just dig in for all you're worth. Concentrating all your defenses into one spot simply allows you to create a massive hardpoint that pumps out humongous amounts of resources. Success!!
  • Talha #23 4 years ago

    @MGG: [IN COH] Did you know that by pressing space and moving the mouse you can change the viewpoint to whatever you like?
  • hbunny #24 4 years ago

    The British side may appear turtlish, but in the hands of an aggressive player, they have a really strong opening.

    I don't know where the reviewer got the idea that the original CoH was a gentle introduction to online RTS and OF is somehow less accessible. The original CoH was tough! I didn't have a clue and racked up loss after loss as both the yanks and germans.

    On the plus side, most 1v1 online matches are between 10 - 30 minutes, sometimes stretching to an hour for more evenly balanced encounters.
  • skillian #25 4 years ago

    I don't know where the reviewer got the idea that the original CoH was a gentle introduction to online RTS and OF is somehow less accessible.

    Dunno about OF, but CoH must have down something right to appeal to the n00bs because I'd never spent more than 30 mins on an RTS in 4-5 years of PC gaming, and now CoH is my most played game.