A Message From WhiteFlash

Index and Priority

New to COH3 Quick List

Resource Points

Capping Circle Art

Victory Points

Miscellaneous

XP Art





(left: COH2, right: COH1)

Veterancy

Unit Tracking

Mod Support

! As for modding, it mostly comes down to one point: COH2's modding tools are still partly locked and that prevents the community from making mods which are comparable to COH1 heavyweights like Blitzkrieg and Eastern Front. Yes, the documentation is also non-existent, but it wasn't great for COH1 either. The community will figure it out. Just, for the love of god, don't put any artificial limits on the tools. Planet Smasher

Statistics

Wounded Vehicles

Bullet Bounce/Armor Types







(COH1: top and mid, COH2: bottom)

Commanders

How Abilities Unlock

Number & Quality of Commanders

Commander Cost

especially

Maps

Hybrid maps in ladder are garbage (designed for 1v1 but have the ability to play 2v2 etc.)



are garbage (designed for 1v1 but have the ability to play 2v2 etc.) Dynamic cutoffs are critical to making an interesting competitive map



to making an interesting competitive map Relic implementing a satisfying and flexible resource system is essential

(see RESOURCES section)

Tactical Map





Terrain Elevation

Community





Faction Design





! Faction design in CoH1 was in many ways superior to CoH2's , many of the basic tools were already there without the need for a commander and the original factions played out in interesting ways due to the high costs associated with any major teching decision. What CoH2 factions have going for it is a more noob friendly approach, I believe a compromise can be done between the two for the next iteration! There was also a more noticeable distinction in game phases on CoH1 where good infantry players could finish the game on that alone without even letting the opponent get a single vehicle out. CoH2 suffered through the patches from heavy light vehicle play that silenced any good infantry play as early as sometimes 4 minutes into a game. I believe that is one of CoH2's flaws that has been bandaged and somewhat fixed for now but that should be looked at carefully for the future. DevM

Mines

! It’s a mark of a top tier player really using the minesweepers and knowing where to check for them, you see that the difference between just below the top tier and the top tier is the number of mines you hit the number of mines you sweep Razor explaining COH1 mine meta in SNF S4



(Also note the dull XP art)

Campaign





I get serious chills watching the old Relic boot logo.





I get serious chills watching the old Relic boot logo.

Conclusion

absolutely

I am an aerospace engineer from the USA that loves Company of Heroes. This is an in-depth look at a combination of game elements and what should be considered, in order to create the best possible experience for COH3. Since seeing SNF Season 3 in 2011, I have been convinced that the core gameplay elements which COH laid out, has the ingredients to be one of the greatest RTS games of all time. It has the potential to have a thriving E-sport attracting tens, if not, hundreds of thousands of people, and generating more than enough cash to make it self-sustaining. If I were leading development on this game, I would treat it as an engineering enterprise, as I have done for almost a decade: start with a blank slate as much as possible, then focus on the design strengths, remove any weaknesses and develop a system which is substantial.I will be comparing and contrasting COH 1 & 2 often in this Newspost, in order to hone in on potential strengths for COH3. My intention is neither to rail against any game, nor praise any game higher than the other, because that is not what interests me. What is important is to look for systems which yield the highest quality game, with the deepest tactical possibilities, and which maximize fun.I am approaching this from as unbiased a position as I can maintain, together with as much design experience as I can bring to bear on this topic. These topics are in no particular order. Note that if something is given a "low" priority, it is still important; nothing added here is irrelevant. Also note that if you agree with the points made, post a '+1' to the article comments, in order to build support for these kinds of implementations in COH3.Please enjoy!P.S. The Addendum to this article is out!Let's get the easy stuff out of the way. Some items that need no explanation, but should be added nonetheless.★★★★☆ Reconnect to multiplayer games.★☆☆☆☆ Ability to choose "random" in multiplayer or PVE.★☆☆☆☆ Ability to choose "Allies" or "Axis" in Ladder or PVE instead of specific army.★★☆☆☆ Rewind in replay mode.★★★☆☆ Custom hotkeys.★★☆☆☆ WASD camera pan support.★★☆☆☆ Button to manually spread out bunched up squad.Defining strategies based on a map's resource points is a fundamental part of COH1. The difference in capping speeds on high and low value points, the potential diversity in having more or less sectors with higher or lower values was a stroke of genius which should be exploited to the fullest once again. Players had to weigh where to put an outpost to keep them safe. The dynamic involvement in the decision to build an OP, or to attack and destroy OPs was great.The way cut-offs work in COH1 was also outstanding. A strategic point did not yield any meaningful resources from outposts which kept them open and exploitable. They were the fastest points to cap, which improved game flow and encouraged assaults for the cut-offs.Something that needs to be brought back that kept the push-pull of COH1 very interesting was population cap being directly connected to the number of points controlled. You do not feel the punishment of being cut off from resources in COH2 as you did in COH1 and that adds more thought, depth and consequences to neglecting cut-offs. It created another potential focal point for battles and contests which are at the heart of COH.Strategic points worked so well in COH1 because they were STRATEGIC, and something very close to it must be resurrected. It is also far more interesting from a map design perspective: the potential variety of maps is increased from the COH1 resource system. The COH2 resource system is inferior in every way which counts.There is a deep conversation that needs to be had in regards to how units capture the resources. Are capping circles the best way to go? Or is direct capping a strategically deeper system? What other interactions with capping could be conceived? For example, in COH1, higher value resources take longer to cap, which seems to make sense.Resources, cut-off points, capping systems: it all has a synergy which needs to be closely examined. Simple is not better in this case; something strategically interesting should be pushed for. After some conversations with experts, capping circles were slightly favored as a capping mechanism because of how points can be contested. Although the COH1 systems capping had its own give and take, risks had to be taken when capping because of higher damage taken, and there were subtle tricks where you could cap-scout with a trick of the mouse ('cap forwarding').Also on the capping circles, the art could definitely be better: specifically, when capping circles and fronts get mixed up. The system is interesting, but the UI for the capping of areas leaves something to be desired.Victory points are, of course, the win condition resource of the game. The spectrum of importance throughout a game slowly fade from resources to VPs. This fade is still an interesting and strategically deep aspect of COH. This aspect was highlighted more in COH1 because of the nature of the better resource system, but it still exists in COH2. It should absolutely be preserved and made to flourish in COH3. It is one of the unique aspects in the RTS universe that can generate nail-biting games, when they are down to the wire.The displayed experience points matches your color in COH2. This information is indefinite. It is almost camouflaged into the experience and feels unsatisfying, compared to COH1's green “popping” experience gain. Relic managed to make the XP gains pop in a satisfying way without making it cartoon-like. There is something to be said for how satisfying removing units in COH1 still is.Veterancy is one of those intuitive parts of COH which everyone loves. The more your units are in combat, the more effective they become. Not exactly. When looking at veterancy from a design standpoint, it quickly becomes clear that it's not simple to design. The existing COH games have shown there are many ways to implement veterancy. Pay-to-vet, veterancy through only combat & kills, veterancy through kills only etc.. This might be one of the more difficult features to balance if it is asymmetric. Earned veterancy seems to be a more reasonable approach, when looking at late game COH1 Wehrmacht. Earned veterancy also encourages the preservation of units, which is a key element and test of skill for players.COH2 had a great UI addition which made units much more manageable. In a game like COH, each unit is important, and the preservation of units is paramount to victory and momentum. Part of me thinks this addition makes it too easy to do that. There could be a way to make units harder to preserve: in addition to the more immediate information about your entire force, there will be a balancing act there, but overall this is a great addition. Another advantage to this display, is that a viewing audience can digest what is going on more easily, further engaging them.DOTA & Counterstrike have shown the potential power and popularity of mods on gaming platforms. Modders work extremely hard to make their visions come to life, and pour hundreds of hours into quality mods to make them happen. Give modders the freedom and information they desire and new dimensions inside of the COH universe today could really open up. Sharing mods is easier than ever with the Steam workshop, and the talent to make mods is tremendous inside of the COH community. COH1 saw mods like Eastern Front, Blitzkrieg & Modern Combat which were amazing in their fluent take on the COH combat system.The Company of Heroes franchise has never done a fantastic job tracking statistics post game or in general. Careers of players go on for literally over a decade. Keeping a running tab of kills from the perspective of the player as a whole, then being able to zoom into faction level statistics and individual unit statistics over the course of a players life could be great and gratifying.Post game statistics can and should be far more detailed and unit specific. Retaining this information for players to look back on in a game by game basis would also be very helpful. If a player could click a replay and instead of having to watch it in its entirety, there could be a button or tab that goes straight to post game stats.Its these kinds of details that people really appreciate and add a lot of value to games. There is almost no statistic that should not be added, everything that can be tracked should be. Everything from how far units have traveled to the types of units they killed to how many times they retreated, those kinds of stats could go on forever, and they should. You never know what kind of post game stat will surprise or interest players and audiences. These statistics can reveal data about map quality, player tenancies, commander capabilities and so on. Take statistics seriously as they could be a capability that takes little effort to implement compared to the quality and satisfaction it brings. The potential here is enormous.Vehicles are critical components of any army. The condition of those vehicles is therefore crucial to anyone trying to understand the condition of their forces. It is also important for anyone who has not played the game to make elements in the game understandable. To that end, COH1 did a phenomenal job with this. In the unit window, instead of having a picture of the unit, it has what looks similar to an engineering schematic. The mechanical condition can immediately be understood via glowing yellow or red highlights in the area that is relevant.I can confidently say this is one of the most effective gameplay UI elements in COH1. COH2 has clunky icon based displays, its traditional and inferior to the genius COH1 system, plain and simple.A small side note: being able to see the shells bounce off tanks in COH1 and the penetration effects were phenomenal. The actual round bouncing into the air made you feel the armor of the vehicle being hit; it was tangible and satisfying. COH2 had more impressive special effects, for sure - Seriously! Watch an intense game in slow motion replay: sometimes it is epic! - and did have rounds splinter on impact occasionally, if they did not penetrate. Seeing the physical round bounce off a tank really made you feel the armor!Another element which would be fantastic, would be front, side and rear armor types in COH3. Right now, when tanks are turned at a right angle from where the incoming fire comes, there is a chance it will hit the rear armor, but the chance is random. Side-armor could add more strategic depth to tanks and make positioning and maneuvering tanks both more interesting and dynamic. With infantry being able to take cover behind tanks, it behooves a tank to be perpendicular to the direction from which the infantry will fire because it would be longer, thus providing more cover. This is just one example as to why side-armor would be more interesting than COH1's or COH2's systems.Commanders are one of the most gratifying elements of Company of Heroes. Now that COH 1 & 2 commander systems have run the gauntlet, COH3 has the opportunity to create the greatest commander system ever seen.It begins with how abilities unlock as experience ('XP') is accumulated. COH2 has a linear "unlock as you go" with no player interaction. There is no thought involved past choosing a commander. This is shallow. The COH1 system was outstanding: choosing a commander, THEN having to decide on the fly, which part of a tree into which to advance. The amount of thought and number of choices being made in this case are exactly what COH is about.The number of commanders in COH1 were relatively small. The number of commanders you had at your disposal could not increase, but every faction did have the same number of commanders. This at least made the meta of commanders more understandable, and focused commanders to being very unusual in their abilities. COH2 has a huge number of commanders which were expanded over time, but the number of commanders in each faction varies for no real reason.The ability to expand the number of commanders is great, and the ability to create more interesting content for players can be exceptional. The problems come when this huge number of commanders have massive overlap on their abilities. This was a huge problem - and still is a problem - in COH2, although it has been improved over time. The COH community are in agreement on this point . It is also worth pointing out the difference for the art used in the COH1 commanders vs COH2's art. The COH1 commander art was bad-ass; the COH2 commander art left something to be desired. Compare the next two pictures below.The originality of commanders is essential to the feel of the game, as well as to the tactical decisions made in matches. There was an entire meta in COH1 around commander choice: counter choices, timing on choosing commanders, timing on choosing abilities and so on. This is only possible IF abilities which overlap in multiple commanders is limited to a maximum of 2, and even this may be too many. Any more than that, and the commander meta which could exist and add strategic depth is greatly diminished. The picture below was once the state of commanders' overlapping abilities: the number of times abilities overlap are color-coded.In summary, keep the total number of commanders available for all factions the same. Limit the number of overlapping abilities in commanders to no more than 2. Most importantly: be very careful, when developing new commanders for release. The ladder meta can be messed up when new commanders arrive, which are released just to sell. It will not do the game or the community any justice. If the new commanders are well-designed, thoroughly thought-out and fit into the synergy of the game, they will be more than welcome. Speaking of selling, however...For any new AAA game, players usually accept a price of 60$ for them on release. There is nothing at all wrong with that. As time goes on, the game becomes cheaper, and bundles show up which make it more economical to play the game. All totally fair!However...In order to possess all the commanders in COH2, you would need to spend ~40$ for the base game, as well as over 100$ for all of the commanders (132$ if bought individually). Another avenue to owning all of the commanders is to play games, and so win what I dubbed 'COH cash' (or CC for short). If you win a game you get 2000 points. 6000 points = 500 coins. 15000 coins = 1 commander.Knowing this, you can approximate how many games you would need to play, in order to own all the commanders, which turns out to be something like 3870 games minimum*. This is crazy! And, it is only if you win every single game, and where you do not receive another item that is not 500 CC, after earning 6000 points. These two avenues of ownership are uninspired and aggravating to just about everyone in the community. Players are tortured by this system,new players, who are the very people we want to convince to stay. This system, more than anything, has kept new players from joining the COH community.* 15 000 CC for 1 commander. 15 000CC divided by 500CC is equal to 30*3. That is equal to 90 games per commander. Multiply that by 43, and the total number of commanders, and you have 3870 games.There are tons of different ways to have players earn commanders. Have the cost of all commanders be $0.50 or 1.00$, make them accessible or free for a limited time or free altogether, not a cash cow. You could make it so players could purchase CC boost timers that give them higher earnings after games. There are many reasonable interesting ways to generate income that would keep everyone happy. You could also consider objective based earnings where players need to do certain things with certain units or accomplish certain tasks. Something that makes sense, for example, a commander that has good anti tank capabilities might be earned by destroying a bunch of tanks. Or a commander that gives air support elements would have you destroy a certain number of aircraft. The number of ways that could be fun and fair to obtain commanders are limited only by the greed or imagination of the people implementing the system.I also understand that Relic and SEGA want to have income generated by COH3 and they should be able to make a profit on their game. They work hard to make all this happen and it has to be recognized. But the needs of the company have to be balanced. If Relic and SEGA want the COH franchise to explode, they need to come to an understanding that players are not going to flock to games that have pay walls for elements they need just in order to compete, no matter how good the game is. Skins can also be an alternate path for revenue.Another problem with the current ownership system is that some commanders are worth more than others. This makes little sense as commanders need to be balanced. If you are putting higher prices on better commanders this implies an imbalance in power between them. It does not feel like proper COH to have some commanders that have no use or to have some commanders that are clearly better than others. Choosing a commander should be a hugely complex task because of the complexities between them all and the potential for counters or map conditions or battle conditions etc.. It should not be possible for commander choices to be "obvious" because of a relative power difference. This specific point is one place that if done right could set COH3 apart from all other RTS games in a stunning way.Id like to implore that the commanders for COH3 be taken extremely seriously as they will be a make or break feature.P.S. What happened to the 88 in COH2? Bring it back!On July 18th, 2013, I wrote Worldbuilding with WhiteFlash . It contained many elements of what a COH map should include and what it should avoid. ~90% of these concepts are still more or less valid and I will reiterate what is most important for a new COH.I want to focus on Relic and how they need to perceive maps. My experience creating competitive maps, analyzing Relic maps, working with Relic and their responses to the community when concerned with map quality will be the driver here. If you have imbalanced shoddy maps, you will produce imbalanced shoddy factions. But you need to create maps that are designed around factions and game mechanics, so this is a chicken and the egg situation. This highlights that maps need to be considered important. When players play a new game, if the environment that their army occupies is not interesting, dynamic or attractive then the impetus to fully engage with the game diminishes rapidly over time. Bad maps equals a bad experience.When COH3 releases, a reasonably solid map pool can pull in new players as much as an interesting faction or a quality campaign. I personally know people who tried COH2 early in its life cycle, saw the map pool and quit never to return. Multiplayer is where most players will land at the end of the day so putting serious effort into maps is important. Keeping the ladder map pool tight is important. Players should be vetoing good maps to play maps that they have strategies for, players should not be vetoing low quality imbalanced maps to hope for good maps while in automatch.This recently procured map data by Siphon X illustrates that the data exists and metrics can be established to have a baseline of quality. Played games is one piece of data among many that can lead developers to remove low quality maps from ladder pools. No disrespect to whoever made the maps that are suggested to be removed here, its just the reality of the situation. Here is another excellent article written by Siphon X that reveals that there is much data that Relic can take advantage of when it comes to maps to find weaknesses in the ladder pool.Focus should be on 1v1/2v2 maps, but the 3v3/4v4 maps are important as well. Really all maps are important. Relic has always needed an experienced mapper leading and maintaining map efforts and executions, something to consider. Also, the community has a lot to offer here in terms of support, their enthusiasm can be a great boon if the energy is organized and focused. The mapping community puts an enormous amount of time and effort trying to analyze and improve the map pool as a whole & the ladder map pool in particular.The tactical maps have enormous potential as a frequently used game element, some players use this even now. First off, the physical map art in COH2 is just undignified and cartoon like, especially when compared to the very useful and detailed COH1 map art. Something much closer to the COH1 map art has to be implemented here. While there are a couple feedback elements that are advantageous in COH2, such as hovering over points and your cursor on the game small tac map changes to confirm your interacting with that point, the COH1 map is superior in almost every way. The actual art of the tactical map is clear. The unit icons are smaller and easier to see. However, COH2 did improve some of the feedback elements with icons showing which units were in combat, which were idle, who is retreating etc..Some combination of these good aspects of the tactical map can make it an invaluable tool to casters and players. Another tool that could be added to the tactical map is the ability to draw on the map & place icons on the tactical map that your team could see, you can extrapolate from there. This would make the tactical map more useful in team games & if casters were watching a game or analyzing a situation they could use this tool to further explain the situation.After much testing in the COH2 maps, I have reached the conclusion that there is no benefit to adding any elevation changes in any map created in COH2. Reason being is that the disruption of expected and reasonable gameplay under conditions where one unit fires up at another unit does not work. Rounds rarely connect and it is only a frustrating experience. COH1 did a fair job at allowing rounds to connect up hills and units to engage each other at different elevations (at times looking funky). Unless all competitive maps are going to be made perfectly flat this element of gameplay will need to be considered to flesh out the possibilities of combat and map design in COH3.Why did not COH2 have chat rooms when it was launched? Why was the ladder system added ages after launch? These questions have obvious answers and I do not blame Relic for being buried transferring from one publisher to another and having their future in jeopardy. Happily, we are long past this and the lack of community features last round have to be revisited in order to highlight how important they are. As COH1 was a competitive multiplayer game to dream of and COH2 has fleshed out very nicely after years of improvements, COH3 has to be polished at launch day.Modern games from very small companies can pull this off and Relic's efforts here would reap huge benefits. For example, players who are hitting the ladder or leagues hard can browse the chat rooms to see who could potentially be searching, this tactic is sometimes used to anticipate opponents. Dropping players immediately into a chat room of their default choosing when they log into COH3 puts players into a position of being able to immediately connect with people they are familiar with and builds a sense of community. It seems small but its important.I need to go over some of the failings in COH2 in order to plant a seed of what to avoid in the future for COH3, specifically when it comes to the UI in terms of menus and community interaction. Before I do, I want to point out some community features that are better in COH2 than COH1, but they are still woefully underwhelming. While COH1 community features were more slick in their presentation and more intuitive in their interaction, they too were underwhelming.COH1 had a better overall menu system. It was intuitive, informative and to the point. It also looked very slick. But its major drawback was the amount of data that players could view, plus mapping & modding support was extremely limited. It was basic, but in 2006 it was a more or less a fair start.If I want to check my own quick stats in COH2, I can flip my player card over and see what is, basically very little information but it is something. If I want to be able to check another players player card in a lobby, you cannot do that. The flow of the menus here is just awful. In order to see someones player card they have to be in a custom game, then you look at the game from the main menu, then click the game, then you can flip their player card.If I want to check stats of a player in a game, I have to navigate an unintuitive set of menus. If I am clicking on a players name, I cannot go directly to his stats. "view profile" only takes you to Steam.In order to see this players stats I have tohave played a game with or against them, I then must go to my player card.Then navigate to the previous game we played and THEN I can click his name and see his player card. This is insane.Many games have shoddy community features to be honest, even the companies with the most time and money to spend on them. But a community system with strong starting features that is straightforward and efficient could keep players for a long time to come because they can see that the community matters enough to invest time into these vital items.I want to take us all back to COH1's Wehrmacht and American factions. The fundamentals existed in both: machine gun flanking dynamics, mortar capabilities, basic mines, snipers and reasonable counter sniping capabilities, few but important emplacements, different dynamic and unique units which were all effective when used correctly. These fundamentals are the foundation of a good faction. Below is an all important rock solid foundation of COH, a machine gun suppressing blobs and an infantry squad flanking. It is beautiful.I endorse trying new things and experimenting with new concepts, but only after being vigorously tested before being released to the public. The OKW in COH2 are a good example, they were such an odd faction when they first appeared but over time they have evolved to be a very cool and interesting group. The desire for these things to be polished before release is high here. The fundamentals of what a Company of Heroes faction were laid out in 2006 and what made that work should be considered before going too far off the rails. By off the rails I mean COH1 brits, the worst designed faction ever, as opposed to the COH1 Americans, likely the best designed faction ever.My focus here is to highlight the importance of building factions that can be played in an E-sports setting. Company of Heroes has the potential to build a competitive game the likes of which has not been seen since Starcraft. The design of the faction fundamentals have to be examined closely before settling on a final design. Its hard to point to a specific type of unit or idea that makes designing a faction easy or straightforward. But I urge Relic to look at the original factions and understand what made the dynamic between them so compelling. Looking to community experts to assist with faction design and balance is recommended here. Finding the most unbiased and reasonable people is critical to getting the help sorely needed when designing factions, its an absurdly complex task that is easier to accomplish when working together.Its important for every faction to have a "basic" mine that can damage everything, is non doctrinal and can be placed from basic builder units. Think COH1 Wehrmacht and American factions. There was an entire meta around basic mines in COH1. COH2 is more INTERESTING because there are more types of mines, and that should absolutely be examined and utilized, but the basic mine in all factions is essential to early/mid game dynamics.While I am on the subject, demo charges should only be able to be used on structures. This may sound salty, like I have lost too many times to a well placed demo, happily this is not the case. It seems like demo charges are too much of something few people appreciate, which is to say insta-killing potentially huge numbers of troops while still being able to get kills when the counter (mine sweepers) detect them. They are tactically shallow, easy to use, they are relatively cheap and turn a game on its head. Demo charges are an attempt to flesh out types of mines and make them more interesting, they fail.Compare that to something like a goliath which is expensive, but its mobile, challenging to use, tactically interesting and the payoff can be huge if used correctly. Its not a mine but it is independent explosives. This thought process was used in COH2 for its variety of mines which is great and should still be considered.I had to boot Homeworld and the COH1 campaign to get the screenshots in this section. I honestly got chills watching the intros and having all the flashbacks of the truly excellent campaigns Relic is capable of putting together. Homeworld 1 & COH 1 in particular. I am putting Homeworld into this section to highlight Relics ability to generate some of the best campaigns ever made. I do not have a lot of specific advice here as I am confident a great job will be done. A couple points: The campaign is a great tool to bring players into the franchise, but the multiplayer is what keeps them here. This section is given 4/5 stars because the campaigns ability to bring in players is very important, creating something interesting and worth buying from a campaign perspective will be clutch if done right.The campaign potential for WW2 is still enormous. As someone who reads far too much about the war, the East and West still have so many stories to tell, Africa has potential too. The possibility of really fleshed out co-op campaigns or massively improved "tiger ace" style campaigns could be amazing co-op. Also the COH2 Ardennes campaign was very cool. The idea that you have armies that are persistent and move around in a risk style could be fleshed out to be something truly original in the COH world. Its also worth mentioning that a balance of Allies and Axis campaigns would be very welcome to people as they are few Axis campaigns to play.If I wanted to get specific, this portion of the article could be bigger than all the others, but my perspectives on a deep, satisfying campaign is not really as important as the perspectives presented on the other portions of the multiplayer aspects of the game. If Relic can muster the creativity to create campaigns like I know they are capable of, we are all in for a sweet ride from a campaign perspective. The key to making COH3 truly epic will be Relic's ability to pull off the multiplayer.All this information still does not touch on every possible aspect of the game that maybe should be. I am talking about target tables, the need for SEGA and/or Relic to support tournaments in a big way to kick off E-sport efforts, improving the worldbuilder tools, sound design, music (coh 1 & 2 music is great), the fact that COH2 truesight is outstanding and should be kept, an entire section maybe should be dedicated to sniper dynamics (no 2 man sniper unit), removing the auto download of custom skins (I have some weird stuff obtained against my will from custom games),keep WW2 theme, the desperate need for game performance & stability (minimize latency issues & crashes), vehicle skins, how great the cover system is, clan support etc..An astounding amount of potential, that is what Company of Heroes 3 has. It has the potential to be one of the greatest RTS games of all time. It has the potential to make COH1 look quaint and COH2 look outdated. It has the potential to create an entirely new E-sport with fans in the hundreds of thousands. The casters are standing by, the players are chomping at the bit and all of the features and experience of the past can add up to be something to astonish the RTS world.I have been lucky enough to influence the Company of Heroes franchise in small ways with the maps I have designed and the assistance I have provided to Relic from time to time and I'm always willing to continue helping when needed. I hope SEGA recognizes Relic's potential and fully supports them in this endeavor. I wish them the best of luck if/when Company of Heroes 3 comes to fruition.Godspeed Relic.Sincerely, WhiteFlashReborn P.S. Special thanks to BlitzReborn for gif help & perspective. NosliwReborn for technical help. XcomReborn and Osinyagov for perspective. A_E for title correction. Sturmpanther for reconnect suggestion. Planet Smasher for mod section help & reminder to add performance and stability in conclusion. Jackas4life for the random faction button idea. DevM for the faction design quote. Siphon_X for map statistics. Yukiko for editing and publishing, and RitaRush for the highlight atop this article. Undertakings like this are always better for having cooperated with peers in the COH community and their time is greatly appreciated!