I love Relic's RTS games. Among them, I am a huge fan of 'Company of Heroes.' I enjoyed how it approached the battlefield differently from other RTS titles, but above all, I loved that individual units didn't die too easily. The process of having soldiers survive a hail of bullets, adding reinforcements, and heading back into the fray is incredibly compelling. I also liked that a tank you spent so much effort to build wouldn't get a scratch from a small-arms fire.
Of course, saying I like it doesn't mean I'm good at it. As anyone who has played it knows, 'Company of Heroes' is by no means an easy game. You have to manage the loadouts and cover positions for every single infantry squad, and you need to properly utilize 'gadgets' like grenades and smoke. The rock-paper-scissors balance between units is so extreme that it's not just 'relatively strong'—it's often a total mismatch. To win, you have to put effort into reading the enemy's strategy and intentions. It's fundamentally different from the 'folk games' where you just mass Marines to take down a Battlecruiser.
That’s why I couldn't help but be excited when I heard about the release of 'COH3: Final Stand' (hereinafter 'Final Stand'). It’s a spin-off in the form of a 'defense game' where you hold out against waves of incoming enemies. On top of that, you get roguelite upgrades every time you clear a wave. In terms of the concept—reducing complexity and focusing on the combat itself—it’s a premise that naturally builds anticipation.
But after playing the released game, it’s quite different from what I expected.
Unfortunately, not in a good way.
It is fun, though. Exactly as much as COH3 is
I bit the bullet and started the game in single-player mode. I’ll explain later why I played solo in a game that features co-op. Uniquely, this game forces you to choose your faction, map, and enemies. That’s a point off right there. Generally, gamers play PvE content like this to feel like they are challenging content created by the developers; they don't particularly enjoy picking the enemies and the battlefield themselves. If I wanted to do that, I’d just play a skirmish match—why bother with a separate mode.
For those familiar with COH, understanding the game itself isn't difficult. At first, infantry-heavy waves attack, but as the waves progress, enemy forces add mortars, grenadiers, and eventually armor. So, you start by building an anti-infantry defense and then prepare for long-range suppression and anti-armor capabilities. Roguelite elements are added here, giving you choices every wave, and these choices can be a real headache.
To start, when you begin the game, most of your core units are disabled. You might think that, as the US faction, you'd at least have 'Riflemen' as a basic unit, but you don't. You only have a Bazooka squad as your minimal anti-armor force. You have to select the missing core units through the 'choices' provided. Early waves are infantry-heavy, so the most efficient units are machine gun squads or snipers, or at the very least, you need to equip your riflemen with anti-infantry weapons (like a Browning or LMG).
The problem is, if these units don't appear in your choices, you can't recruit them. Consequently, the flow of the game isn't 'I lead and the choices add power,' but rather 'I rely on the choices and pray.' By the late game, enemy armor literally pours out, and if you don't get enough anti-armor choices, you're forced to struggle through it.
So, is it not fun? That's not the case. It is fun. Exactly as much as COH3. You don't need to capture points, you don't need to build various structures, and the enemy's path is fixed, so it's much simpler—you only need to focus on micro-control during combat. That can be a form of fun, if I force myself to think about it.
But who plays COH without micro-managing their units? Ultimately, the fun this game provides is exactly on par with COH3. And that fun is similar to just playing an AI-match in the main game. I don't see any unique, superior fun in this mode that justifies paying for it.
Why is there no matchmaking...?
Let's talk about the bigger problem that outweighs the actual gameplay.
One minute after launching the game—just one minute—I spotted a major issue. One of the draws of 'Final Stand' is that it supports 'co-op play.' In gaming, the word 'co-op' is like MSG in cooking: a dish might be good without it, but it’s guaranteed to be better with it. The problem is that 'Company of Heroes' is a classic example of a game that only appeals to a niche audience.
Of course, if you add up players worldwide, the number isn't small, and you can find a fair number of domestic users, but at least in my circle, no one plays this game. Who would buy a ₩30k spin-off when they haven't even played the main game? So, while there is co-op, you can't play it. The MSG that makes everything taste better is sealed inside a steel can. And I have neither a can opener nor a grinder.
Logically, if you support co-op play, you should provide quick-matching so you can meet strangers, but this game has no matchmaking at all. As a result, if you don't have friends, you can't play co-op. What's the point of having MSG if you can't sprinkle it? There is a somewhat archaic method of creating and joining public rooms, but without an ELO system, it's not easy to find players of your skill level.
In a way, this could be a forgivable issue. If you think about it differently, you could just assume the developer lacked the capacity to build it. But that's not the case. There's a reason this 'lack of matchmaking' is so infuriating: the main COH3 game already has perfectly functional matchmaking for 'AI-match co-op.'
'I didn't know how' can be an excuse, but 'I could have, but I didn't' is a sin. This isn't a free update; it's a standalone game sold for money. No matter how I look at it, I can't understand why they left out matchmaking. It's not like this game has dozens of dedicated servers running like Battlefield, nor is the solo play incredibly fun.
StarCraft 2's co-op was a saint in comparison.
To give the conclusion first: this game is not worth buying. Unless you are such a huge fan of the COH series that you can't tolerate an empty space in your library, you'd be better off buying three bowls of gukbap or a whole fried chicken with side dishes.
I also don't really understand why they based it on 'COH3' for a standalone release. COH1 had commanders, COH2 had doctrines, and COH3 has battlegroups. If they had refined these well and made them into distinct factions, it might have been a much more fun and different-feeling game.
You don't have to look far. 'StarCraft 2's' co-op mode is a textbook example of how to create co-op content for an RTS. StarCraft 2 only has three basic factions, but in co-op, they added campaign-spec and legacy-spec units, and defined each commander's concept so that every commander has their own charm.
That alone creates a 'tactics fantasy' that is enough to entice players. Furthermore, co-op is basically free, with only additional commanders costing money.
If they had taken that and just made it 'COH-like,' the ₩30k wouldn't have been a waste. But they couldn't even do that. The most infuriating part is that without matchmaking, I have to play with foreigners I can't communicate with, with high latency, at a difficulty I don't want—but even if there were matchmaking, I'm not sure it would be as fun as StarCraft 2's co-op.
Having written this, it seems like I've only laid out grand criticisms, so let me say something nice: as I said before, it is fun. Just as much as COH3. In that case, wouldn't it be better to just buy the main game?
- Simplicity focused on defense without strategy
- The fun of COH3, here too
- A poorly designed roguelite, no matter how you look at it
- It's co-op, but there's no matchmaking
- Standalone, but feels like a COH3 mod
Review Platform: PC (Launch Build)
Sort by:
Comments :0
