I liked the campaign. The concept of persistent company strength is a great idea. I just wish it was tied to units instead of models. There isn't really much you can do to avoid losing models if you want to use infantry in combat at all. Other than this, it felt really satisfying. Especially the stealth mission, pretty damn well done for an RTS. I did kinda break it by finding out there is a path around the edge of the map you can use to stay out of sight of every infrared half-track present, and I used it to drive over all the objectives with a sherman. But despite the unintended results, it still felt really good. I gotta replay it someday, finally try to get that golden medal and vehicle skin.

I loved the Demo Rangers. They bring me so much JOY!

Honestly I love the concept of the Ardennes Assault campaign. We got to pick 3 (out of the 4) companies and slowly kick jerry back while keeping company strength alive and slowly turning those 3 companies into badass as well. Also I always like historical-based gaming especially this

Awesome!!!! Brings back good memories :)

wish i didn't lose first time to the invincible enemy stuart glitch

Good analysis, thanks.

I think there should be a Multiplayer mode where you can make a division and your choices would matter even in multiplayer. Probably this could be done with random missions being generated

great video

I still find it really weird that a faction of generalist infantry and vehicles were placed in a campaign with persistent unit loses. Usually games give you much more powerful but specialized units like a tank destroyer with heavy frontal armor but no turret or lmg squads with high dps but only 2 or 3 models.

Thanks for pointing this out bro. I thought nobody noticed this. I actually replay the missions by intentionally screwing up and hearing the after action report.

"Lets just hope it's not the last". COH 3 XD I respect your preferences but I still think the American campaign in COH 1 is the best. I hope Relic remasters it one day.

I belive the campaign could have done better of they gave the AI some dynamic function you move to A it moves to B sort and as the player you encricling the AI would have been to your top priortiy

Relic is creating a dynamic campaign in Company of Heroes 3.

I think I remember the M7B1 priest being a potential unlock, now that is some heavy firepower unfortunately it was near the Siegfried Line very early on the line, so i had to let it go

Wc3&C&C GENERALS ZERO HOUR are my favourite games too. Plus aoe

9:40 does he say Pete Budigeg?

Anyone knows how to buy world in conflict these days?

its free to download on steam this weekend

I agree with these points. I liked this game over COH 2.

Yeah this campaign so facking good man , i play this at high graphics too so good missions are far better and yea loosing troops will hurt

how come you didnt play blitzkrieg?

Its awesome until you keep crashing on Ouren's 2nd wave which they apparently said they fixed but didn't then its not so awesome anymore

I didn't mind the Eastern front campaign since it is grossly overlooked in the Western world but it just seemed to reinforce the Western stereotype of the Red Army being a half-arsed, backward and cowardly horde. But Ardennes Assault was downright scary at times (used Mechanised, Airborne and Ranger companies) especially when you're up against a vet level 5 Jagtiger or Fallschirmjager squads. Shame we never got a Coh game set in the Pacific, North Africa or the Italian theatres either. With WWII there is alwayd so much to work with.

company of heroes 3 should be set either in the vietnam war or modern setting like iraq war or something

Honestly, this campaign was always a disappointment for me. I always preffered campaigns with bigger reliance on narrative, story and characters, such like those from CoH1 or World in Conflict. This one severely lacks it apart from 1st mission, and it becomes completely forgettable soon after playthrough.

What's with "and/or"? WTF does it even mean? Can you define it pls?

this campaign is just straight up bad but ok

CoH3 tried to remake this on a grand scale yet they failed miserably

i HATE timed missions

well campaigns are not what keep people interested into the game, its the other play modes like skirmishes or conquests, campaigns are there just to train you for those other better modes and thats it, yuo guys take campaigns way too seriously when the campaign is literally just a big tutorial with a different name attached, tutorial for the other better and more lenthy game modes

Watching this was quite tiresome, the author is just too full of himself. I bothered to watch his take on the Soviet campaign and I almost threw up. The guy is just way too narcisistic with his monotone and condescending tone - to the point of callind a PTSD-striken and death roll in-mate of a Gulag, Lev Abramovich, "self-righteous". Sigh... more like projection there. He starts this video saying RTS campaigns are uninspired. Excuse me? Command and Conquer, Starcraft, World in Conflict... All of those had incredible campaigns. He does that to clearly force a narrative, presenting Ardennes Assault as the best RTS campaign ever made - which it clearly isn't. I noticed this behavior in people when they want to point to something but force their case way too much. Like a neckbeard claiming Band of Brothers "is shit" in order to push The Pacific as a superior product (you wish) and also pose as an intellectual. Worse still, he tries to push his narrative towards the unit strength into a moral argument (ugh). The Soviet campaign was based on Vasily Grossman's "A Writer at War", describing real events, so cope with it already. steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=769568607 I beat this game twice on Hard without losing a single battle and always gold out of sheer stubbornness and I can say it's not worth it. Just do it on Easy or Medium, it grant the exact same tokens - just make sure to beat once with every 4 companies (since you can only choose 3 per run). The gamplay itself is mostly based in challenges by mission (territory) and those were mainly broken or boring. At one time I captured and crewed every vehicle on the map because the game glitched with the last German wave not showing, and you can't restart the missions in Ardennes Assault. steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=775700092 steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=775700115 steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=775700081 He presents Ardennes Assault as having a novel idea of making it a boardgame-style map, but that was made far better in the Theater of War of Tom Clancy's EndWar; same with the game leading you to take care of your units. He claims people didn't like Ardennes Assault simply because of the timetables in the missions, omitting how incredibily broken the campaign was when it came out. So broken still they had to make a Ranger company to remedy how underpower the vanilla companies where. The Rangers were beast in close combat and could be armed with bazookas, so the player could simply rush the enemy. steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=780372761 Dog Company was completely useless, with their assault engineers firing paintballs on the Germans at pointblank, and the paratrooper company was only useful in capture the point missions, with the special missions being better reserved for Fox Company (Rangers) and Baker Company (Mechanized). I had to rely on the rangers so much in Dog Company run they ended the campaign with 20% strength. steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=782833016 steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=784997955 The German AI would pump armour and units without any consideration for resources and well above the manpower count. In one mission only kills by vehicles would count towards victory points and the Germans would have two Tiger Aces at the same time. Another problem was the faulty reward system, with times and usage of off-map supports being punished. You can't give me a cool toy (the artillery barrage in the Elsenborn Ridge) and punish me for using it. This campaign would be remade with completely different buldings and units, but I didn't bother to play this one. He then pretentiously tries to push the unit strength system as a moral stand in the consequences of war, making a false equivalence with Abramovich mourning his lost friends used so wastefully by a callous command with burning Germans in a mission. Blah blah blah "consequences to my actions", "throwing away lives" blah blah blah... Calm down, it's just a game. It's tiresome how the same "arguments" became run of the mill recently. Unit strength was a good idea but badly implemented and punishing. The game is always bleeding your companies white and the quicker you beat the Germans the better; this is trumpled by bad mission design and underpowered commanders. You can add in replacements to your losses but this decreases your companies experience - which recalls stats and powers. The commanders (except Durante) were basic clichés of the academy-educated officer (Bill Edwards from Baker), the uneducated son of Italian imigrants with a crooked tongue forced into command against his will (Vastano of the paras) and the oldguard veteran of Dog Company "so worried about those kids". American clichés, that's why they are so forgettable. The last mission was cool, at least with this I can agree, but one thing this review could have explored better was the insertion of random side objectives and the newsreel narrative.