Company of Heroes PC

  • Publisher: THQ
  • Release Date: Sep 13, 2006
User Score
8.9

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1036 Ratings

User score distribution:

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. May 20, 2015
    7
    A RTS style game that changes up the play field by using squads instead of units while playing. A Unique creative feature that fits in with the WW2 game. As a WW2 game the story is just what you would expect from the base of the game ( No DLC). Basically Band of Brothers in a video game format. Movement felt off as the units would fill in where they could and even though there was cover,A RTS style game that changes up the play field by using squads instead of units while playing. A Unique creative feature that fits in with the WW2 game. As a WW2 game the story is just what you would expect from the base of the game ( No DLC). Basically Band of Brothers in a video game format. Movement felt off as the units would fill in where they could and even though there was cover, they would be standing around getting picked off. Attacking other units was a confusing formula of are you going to hit? or how long will this take to end? Could have a squad of 4 targeted on 1 enemy solider in a open field and they would exchange gun fire for 30-45 seconds without hitting something. As a real time strategy game it was fun and challenging. When it comes to war themed RTS games I prefer Command and Conquer Expand
  2. Jun 11, 2014
    7
    Another average RTS game. It is a lot of fun until about level 3, where you will die again and again while wondering why your 4 riflemen can't defeat 10 tanks.
  3. Oct 27, 2013
    5
    I think I might be one of the few people on the planet who doesn't think much of this. The strategy is workable. The campaign has an acceptable storyline, the graphics are ok. Everything about it screams, "yeah, not bad" to me. Ah well.. never mind.
  4. Aug 30, 2013
    5
    Graphics are great, maps are outstanding, many excellent features, and the multiplayer is AWESOME. This game COULD have been great all around. But you don't get an A+ for "could have".

    Why isn't it great? Because the computer AI is incredibly stupid, regardless of the difficulty, and cheats shamelessly and endlessly to make up for it's stupidity. It also has among THE WORST vehicle
    Graphics are great, maps are outstanding, many excellent features, and the multiplayer is AWESOME. This game COULD have been great all around. But you don't get an A+ for "could have".

    Why isn't it great? Because the computer AI is incredibly stupid, regardless of the difficulty, and cheats shamelessly and endlessly to make up for it's stupidity. It also has among THE WORST vehicle pathfinding of any RTS I've played. The AI tactical intelligence and vehicle pathfinding is literally no better than Starcraft 1. Yes, it's seriously that bad.

    This tells me that Relic was unwilling to spend the time to develop a genuinely intelligent AI to match the incredibly detailed and complex maps they built, because they didn't see the need to waste the man hours making the Single Player or Co-Op experience as good as the Multiplayer.

    Don't you DARE try to enjoy the single player campaign in this game. It's an utter exercise in frustration and misery until you finally realize WHY the enemy can dance through heavy machine gun fire, built multiple tanks at a time, and always has 2x (or 3x, or even 4x) the manpower points as you.

    It's because Relic made it that way, because they were too lazy to care.
    Expand
  5. Aug 7, 2013
    6
    Overrated. This game wants to be a RTS that emphasizes tactics and strategy, but ends up being more of a cleverly disguised spinoff of the Command & Conquer series than anything else. Don't get me wrong there are lots of cool ideas here, but none that really excel in the framework of the game.

    You have the ability to station troops behind walls or inside houses for cover; engineers can
    Overrated. This game wants to be a RTS that emphasizes tactics and strategy, but ends up being more of a cleverly disguised spinoff of the Command & Conquer series than anything else. Don't get me wrong there are lots of cool ideas here, but none that really excel in the framework of the game.

    You have the ability to station troops behind walls or inside houses for cover; engineers can build sandbags, barbed wired fences or anti-tank blockades, and even plant landmines; you are given a variety of troop types from machine guns, snipers, basic infantry, down toward mortars for long range bombardments; and even an RPG like level up skill system based on experience gained. Heck, the game even adds an overhead tactical view as if to say, "see this is more than your mindless send wave after wave of whatever type of unit you want and auto win." All sounds really cool!

    However, it won't be long till you realize all these "strategies" are a waste of time and you'd be better off ignoring them and going back to the standard "build tons of whatever units, group them all together into a giant blob, and just move around the map steamrolling the enemy." The AI is dumb. Your troops are dumb. They require 24/7 babysitting with micromanagement intervention for every fight or they will just keel over and die at the mere sight of the enemy (even if you put your troops in superior cover positions). So attempting to tactically spread troops around the battlefield is not a worthwhile tactic. Attempting to move to a different area of the map away from your main army and build up some defenses with an engineer is not worthwhile. These things will just cause your troops to needlessly be lost and you finding yourself falling behind. The terrible zoomed in camera that makes the game feel like its 640x480 resolution from the 90's is just the extra kick in the balls for strategic gameplay. Company of Heroes manages to somehow actively punish you for attempting to play it tactically and rewards those who who don't.

    As for the battles they are cartoonish. Makes Call of Duty look like a hardcore combat sim. Infantry standing 2 feet from eachother unloading hundreds of rounds unable to kill eachother. Flank some enemy infantry and get them surrounded and pinned down. Easy kill right? Nope, the game has an infantile Retreat functionality that magically turns your troops into zombie-like super soldiers with tank like defensive buffs and cheetah like speed. Up they pop and safely run back to base to heal while surviving thousands of bullets being fired at them along the way. Is this a PC RTS or a RTS made for XBOX kiddies? Hard to tell sometimes.

    Its not a bad RTS, but its not a great one either. Certainly not the absurd "Greatest RTS of all time" taglines being thrown around. Have you people ever played a RTS before? Half the Age of Empires series, the C&C's, Starcrafts, Warcraft, Total Annihilation, et al all trump this game. Even if we are strictly talking WW2 RTS the less marketed Men Of War series is a more impressive feat.

    Final Score:
    6/10. Despite being hilariously cartoonish and immersion breaking for a WW2 title the single player campaign has some pretty good production value. And if tactics, strategy, realism, base building, or the minimum requirement of a functioning brain in a RTS is of no interest to you then the multiplayer is probably right up your alley.
    Expand
  6. Jun 6, 2013
    7
    Where I like it for being WWII rts game with pretty nice graphic and sound effects, I dislike it for inbalance of fractions (yes, Axis are op) and amount of bugs that makes gameplay EVEN with/against AI frustrating as hell.
  7. May 30, 2013
    5
    Campaing was decent 5 points for that but now to the skirmish & multiplayer with friends Game is unrealistic as crap infantry squad running in front of tanks & mg nest just stay there for 5 seconds and then run away Tank vs tank battles boring as hell not enough units Artificial dificulty on harder dificulty on skirmish basicly meaning that 1 enemy anti tank squad will screw upCampaing was decent 5 points for that but now to the skirmish & multiplayer with friends Game is unrealistic as crap infantry squad running in front of tanks & mg nest just stay there for 5 seconds and then run away Tank vs tank battles boring as hell not enough units Artificial dificulty on harder dificulty on skirmish basicly meaning that 1 enemy anti tank squad will screw up 10 of your tanks even when theyr standing 5 meter from the tanks .
    Tanks do no dmg to infantry rly wtf is this hello it has machine gun ???????)
    TLDR Game is overrated as unrealistic only good thing is campaing
    Expand
  8. Nov 15, 2012
    6
    A game which has strong elements and an enjoyable RTS system but for me the game never made me really want to play it and towards the end pushed through to just finish it.
  9. Jul 3, 2012
    7
    I always wanted a WW2 RTS. No one ever seemed to deliver though, until know. i LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE this game. Its all us RTS gamers could ask for, including stuff we might not have :/

    As stated before, i love this game, but there are certainly some things that hold back gameplay. Standard to almost all games unfortunately, is that the AI is so incredibly stupid its mind boggling, you
    I always wanted a WW2 RTS. No one ever seemed to deliver though, until know. i LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE this game. Its all us RTS gamers could ask for, including stuff we might not have :/

    As stated before, i love this game, but there are certainly some things that hold back gameplay. Standard to almost all games unfortunately, is that the AI is so incredibly stupid its mind boggling, you mostly have to baby-sit the units youre advancing with. The penetration in tank on tank is VERY frustrating, the Shermans constantly bouncing 88mm shells off their hull like it was a soft breeze.

    Playing single player is almost not an option on the Axis. If you dont end the game FAST, you will lose, unless you have the Ai set to easy. Ive tried many times to do so, maybe its just me. But basically, anything you through at anywhere is facing it's weakness. The allies NEVER use any strategy other than massing anti tank guns and flamethrower engineers. because the game is balanced in a sense, Shermans are almost as powerful as the Panzer IVs and Tigers you through at them, making superiority in quality not easily achieved. The Germans are incredibly expensive, everything they have takes preposterous amounts of gas. Overall, the Germans get the short end of the stick from start to finish. Thats not to say they cant win, its just incredibly difficult. So basically, if youre in a single player game against the Allies, end the game quick or dont expect a win without incredible difficulty. All they do is mass AT guns and armored cars, making even a nice balanced mix of units crumble under 6 AT guns and other small arms. This is the problem, at least, with playing 2v2 and up, because the allied AI can produce AT guns so incredibly fast, it melts anything you throw at them.

    This game could be better, like all games, but its just what i wanted, a WW2 RTS. The majority of the game is great fun.
    Expand
  10. May 10, 2012
    5
    A near perfect game, heavily marred by glitchy unit AI, as many others have stated (tanks driving straight into other tanks etc, trying to get a tank to reverse to retreat is almost impossible, as they always try to turn their back to the enemy, which is the weak spot, AND it heavily slows them down)

    and an obvious imbalance in teams. US and Nazis is an equal battle, but Panzer Elites are
    A near perfect game, heavily marred by glitchy unit AI, as many others have stated (tanks driving straight into other tanks etc, trying to get a tank to reverse to retreat is almost impossible, as they always try to turn their back to the enemy, which is the weak spot, AND it heavily slows them down)

    and an obvious imbalance in teams. US and Nazis is an equal battle, but Panzer Elites are overpowererd, and the British literally cannot play without having US allies or they will be crushed quickly, but if the Brittish do play with American allies they become completely overpowered and it becomes a case of spawn killing with pounder howitzer barrages on the enemy base!

    Couple that with the most unfriendly online community imaginable (just try and get in games with a bad win/loss ratio, i dare you, noone wants to play on your team, its terrible) the player base care way more about their stats and ranking than actually having fun on the game...

    and it is a real shame because the game itself looks to be astoundingly good, its such a pity that the potential is wasted.
    Expand
  11. May 1, 2012
    7
    This game is one of the best strategy games I have ever played. It is very fun and its graphics are amazing. The AI is pretty stupid through, which ruins the game a little bit. This is why I give this a 7.
  12. Oct 17, 2011
    6
    This is one of the most overrated games I have played in many years. The praise given by critics and gamers to Company of Heroes is truly alarming. To play the game, you will be forced into signing up and logging into a Relic-Online account with your CD key. It doesn't matter if you're playing single player. Relic forces you into this DRM style process that is not even listed with Steam.This is one of the most overrated games I have played in many years. The praise given by critics and gamers to Company of Heroes is truly alarming. To play the game, you will be forced into signing up and logging into a Relic-Online account with your CD key. It doesn't matter if you're playing single player. Relic forces you into this DRM style process that is not even listed with Steam. This is absolutely unnacceptable and I feel misinformed by Steam and Relic. Relic had another idiotic idea. Menus for all three standalone Company of Heroes games are included, but locked. There are also two training missions from the second standalone game that appear, but are locked as well. Ridiculous. Upon first impressions (first four missions), the tactics appear to be slow, unrealistic, lacking in response, and surprisingly linear for a real-time strategy game. I am somewhat shocked, as this game has secured much hype over the years. The AI (of your own units and the enemy) is amazingly simple and limited. The units often have a hard time with your directions, and all units appear to be suffering from Alzheimer's disease. The AI is simply not up to standard. Many of your troops stand or sit around during a large generalized firefight, or have extremely bad shot accuracy. Saving and loading times (especially) are unexcusably long even with a modern computer. After you quit the game, Steam uploads/synchronizes several hundred megs each time. I understand I can turn this off. My complaint is the amount of space the Company of Heroes save games occupy without allowing you to delete previously saved games. Company of Heroes does not make this simple save game housekeeping possible. The game has some serious sound volume troubles in general, as it is abnormally low. Between the live action portion and the cutscenes, this problem is most serious. The cutscenes are much lower in volume in comparison. You will be restricted to constructing a very small amount of buildings (six) and only seven types of infantry troops. If the aforementioned buildings and units were more extensive with their usage and utility, I would not have much to gripe about. In reality, you will find that what you have access to is quite abridged for a game that came out in 2006. From the fifth mission on, things do get better and a tiny bit more exciting, even though it will continue to be almost an exact repetition of the first four missions. The gameplay is abbreviated, strikingly dull, laggard, close to being boring, and with little to no excitement. You select your squad(s), point them in a certain direction, select some inexstensive actions, watch some mildly interesting battle take place until the enemy troops are all dead, then capture a strategic point. That's it. There is really not much else to it. Even if the mission objectives change from mission to mission, the means you will exercise to achieve those goals will be the same. Construct buildings, generate units, upgrade, take over strategic points, repair units, replenish units, and then repeat. Once again, that's it. Company of Heroes does not provide the player with any fresh real-time strategy scope. This clumsy piece of software also managed to crash multiple times during the final mission. It took me about 19 hours to complete. Expand
  13. Sep 12, 2011
    6
    This game is highly overrated. Yes, it's a good game, quite different from regular RTS games out there, but you get tired of the innovative stuff after 5 missions. It's the same old song and dance in all missions (make tanks and go through the map cleaning the path), you have very little choice of units (< 10), even less of buildings. To be worse, all the battle can be summarized as tankThis game is highly overrated. Yes, it's a good game, quite different from regular RTS games out there, but you get tired of the innovative stuff after 5 missions. It's the same old song and dance in all missions (make tanks and go through the map cleaning the path), you have very little choice of units (< 10), even less of buildings. To be worse, all the battle can be summarized as tank fights. Infantry units are almost useless.

    This game starts very promising, but gets off the trail very bad. It's a shame. I couldn't make it to the end, got really boring.
    Expand
  14. DanielG
    Dec 23, 2009
    7
    I like this game but it falls apart when it comes to the AI i mean come on. I played against easy AI on a skirmish and they already had 3/4 of the map when i started sending troops out; this means you might as well quit the game because as soon as they get tanks out you are dead.
  15. joe
    Sep 16, 2009
    7
    The tanks, Jesus Christ they can be retards, instead of retreating lets do a full u turn, expose our rear armor and die. Infantry, Why do you insist on jumping out from behind the sandbags and getting blown to hell? Game has balance issues, once the enemy controls more than 2/3 the map you may as well quit as they will have more units than you have bullets. But some parts do redeem this game.
  16. DiexeN.
    Sep 7, 2009
    7
    While i did enjoy the whole squad based combat and the fully discructable environments i never really liked the stratiegic point capturing objective. It gets frustrating during a single or multiplayer game because while im capturing one of the enemys points he is usually captuering one of mine and i just hate that. But overall it was a pretty good game and the campaign was good so i will While i did enjoy the whole squad based combat and the fully discructable environments i never really liked the stratiegic point capturing objective. It gets frustrating during a single or multiplayer game because while im capturing one of the enemys points he is usually captuering one of mine and i just hate that. But overall it was a pretty good game and the campaign was good so i will give it a 7. Expand
  17. LM
    Aug 24, 2009
    7
    There's a lot to like in CoH and the game has a huge following. I'll come right out with it though.. This game is for kids. If two tanks circling each other and firing at point-blank is your idea of a 10/10 game, so be it. Also if you buy this game it will take you about 4 hours at least to download and install all the patches. Just figuring out which patches you need to get is There's a lot to like in CoH and the game has a huge following. I'll come right out with it though.. This game is for kids. If two tanks circling each other and firing at point-blank is your idea of a 10/10 game, so be it. Also if you buy this game it will take you about 4 hours at least to download and install all the patches. Just figuring out which patches you need to get is a challenge. What CoH succeeds at is delivering the experience with a simple/solid user interface. However the gameplay in CoH isn't very hardcore. Another RTS I find more detailed and rewarding to play: Men of War. It isn't nearly so arcade-ish as CoH and has a far better ballistics model. Well, CoH doesn't really have much of a ballistics model. When you tire of CoH, get Men of War. Expand
  18. DavidP
    Mar 11, 2009
    5
    The graphics and gameplay in this game are terrific, apart from some small problems with AI that others have mentioned. But I take issue with the oppressive front-end, which has to be the worst on the market. Even if you only want to play single-player, you are forced to create an online account and log in. Even worse, the first time you run the game you have to download and install large The graphics and gameplay in this game are terrific, apart from some small problems with AI that others have mentioned. But I take issue with the oppressive front-end, which has to be the worst on the market. Even if you only want to play single-player, you are forced to create an online account and log in. Even worse, the first time you run the game you have to download and install large patches. You have no choice. It works like this: you start the game, wait for it to load, and are told you must install a 75 MB patch. The game exits, the patch downloader starts, and it downloads the patch (patches ranges in size from about 10 to over 100 MB). The patch to installs. You must repeat this process seven times before you are allowed to play! Expand
  19. JimW
    Aug 12, 2008
    7
    Very good game and probably deserves all the plaudits it has got. But i want to nitpick. Briefly, A little too much micromanagement required, maybe I just suck but i have trouble controlling every aspect of what every one of my units is doing, at the same time. AI can be an utter pain in the behind, especially when they don't seem to want to get into cover when there is plenty about, Very good game and probably deserves all the plaudits it has got. But i want to nitpick. Briefly, A little too much micromanagement required, maybe I just suck but i have trouble controlling every aspect of what every one of my units is doing, at the same time. AI can be an utter pain in the behind, especially when they don't seem to want to get into cover when there is plenty about, and instead sit themselves plum in the middle of a field. Apart from that, it is great. It is like a awesome sports car, but with a few dents that need buffing out. Expand
  20. thomasl
    Jul 15, 2008
    5
    Great graphics in all but it lackes alot of gamplay how long would it take to kill a 6 man squad behind a small wall of sandbags with some of the units in the open? it would take 5 seconds or a bit more. according to this game it takes a minute. i was behind sandbags online with 10 riflemen and grenadiers came towards me and threw a greande and killed most of them and in that time i only Great graphics in all but it lackes alot of gamplay how long would it take to kill a 6 man squad behind a small wall of sandbags with some of the units in the open? it would take 5 seconds or a bit more. according to this game it takes a minute. i was behind sandbags online with 10 riflemen and grenadiers came towards me and threw a greande and killed most of them and in that time i only killed 2 of 8 grenadiers and they were running at me in the open and they killed 8 riflemen. ffs i mean cmon in real life they wouldnt even do that for starters it would be suicide and if they did they wouldnt even get close. you hit the units but there's no death they just keep running and running they dont even go on the floor ffs. this is very disappointing. i got to level 8 american and level 7 where. wake up people look at the GAMEPLAY. Expand
  21. TomS
    May 22, 2008
    6
    For a game that has this much hype - it should play better. Good: Single player campaign is possibly the best for any RTS. Graphics are amazing (altho not sure about DX10 making that much difference) Bad: Overall game balance. It's too easy to simpily win via numbers by flooding the enemy with cheap troops. This and a dosen other cheap tactics which work on balance issues/flaws have For a game that has this much hype - it should play better. Good: Single player campaign is possibly the best for any RTS. Graphics are amazing (altho not sure about DX10 making that much difference) Bad: Overall game balance. It's too easy to simpily win via numbers by flooding the enemy with cheap troops. This and a dosen other cheap tactics which work on balance issues/flaws have ruined online play. You may think this is not due to the game, but the players. This is not so. Relic are horrifically bad at spotting these, and fixing the bugs/balance issues that is the basis for the rubbish online play experience. This is widely acknowledged in the multiplayer lobbies. Expand
  22. JonD.
    Aug 7, 2007
    5
    I used to love the old close combat series and strategy-wise this game falls short, just another pretty resource management RTS. I watched a Tiger get blown up by frontal hits from an allied anti-tank weapon, I'm sorry but that is not realistic. I loved the chess-match aspect of close combat, you needed to have a tactical strategy to play that game, not micromanaging all this I used to love the old close combat series and strategy-wise this game falls short, just another pretty resource management RTS. I watched a Tiger get blown up by frontal hits from an allied anti-tank weapon, I'm sorry but that is not realistic. I loved the chess-match aspect of close combat, you needed to have a tactical strategy to play that game, not micromanaging all this resource nonsense and building units. I want a prettier close combat series to come along. Expand
  23. YoshiY.
    Jul 28, 2007
    7
    A great looking RTS game that's somewhat different from a lot of those out there. But still, I'm probably being generous giving it a seven for couple of reasons. The biggest problem is the micro-management required for a lot of your units, which can be hell in the heat of battle. Guns won't point and fire in the right direction unless you tell them to, while your infantry A great looking RTS game that's somewhat different from a lot of those out there. But still, I'm probably being generous giving it a seven for couple of reasons. The biggest problem is the micro-management required for a lot of your units, which can be hell in the heat of battle. Guns won't point and fire in the right direction unless you tell them to, while your infantry won't automatically throw those sticky bombs at an enemy tank unless you tell them to--and you have to repeatedly do so--even though their rifles have no visible effect on armour. Locating your units can be a pain too, and since this game limits you to the number of units available more than most RTS do, every unit counts. There are also various niggling problems, like base placement and unit movements. Once my rangers got trapped in a building and couldn't get out - I eventually had to shell the area (and lose half the unit) before they crawled out from the rubble... Tanks also have a nasty habit of running into each other, and that's bad when you're under fire. Enemy's AI rather good, especially with flanking your troops. That would've been great it it weren't for the fact that all this micro-managing really puts you in a disadvantage. And with the opponent in CoH playing quite aggressively, things can get really frustrating at times. Wasn't expecting this to be historically authentic and that proved true, though it didn't really matter to me. Still, wish the game had offered more campaigns rather than just Normandy, and more variety of gameplay as the story unfolds instead of the same old thing over and over. Expand
  24. KenB.
    Feb 3, 2007
    5
    My goodness! Everybody is talking about this game being so great and stuff. But for me its not.I Think its overrated. Sure its got some of the best graphics to date, but thats about it. This game cannot beat Starcraft, Warcraft , Warhammer etc... First and foremost, a lot of people is saying that the game is balanced, well of course its balanced! its only got 2 factions for cry'n out My goodness! Everybody is talking about this game being so great and stuff. But for me its not.I Think its overrated. Sure its got some of the best graphics to date, but thats about it. This game cannot beat Starcraft, Warcraft , Warhammer etc... First and foremost, a lot of people is saying that the game is balanced, well of course its balanced! its only got 2 factions for cry'n out loud. Its not going to be hard to balance it out. And they'd get laughed upon if they cant even balance 2 opposing sides. Second, its got no air units which is really disappoining. WW2 involves lots of air battles, and COH doesnt have them? Third, you can only play the Allied campaign, another serious drawback. Fourth, there is only 2 factions, where are the British,Soviets and the Italians? Didnt they play major roles in WW2? Not so realistic as some people say it is. Fifth is that it is very repetetive, I got tired playing it after 2 weeks since you can only play Allies and Axis. And people should be true to them selves and not copy the reviews of others. Some people give the game a high score just because some people have given the the same. Maybe it does deserve a high score but not past 8.3. But I gave it a flat 5 because of the 5 reasons that I've posted here. Actually its 4 + 1 because it does have great sounds. I do love Relics games especially warhammer. But I'm really disappointed at CoH, really... And this is my review of the game. Expand
  25. ChrisJ.
    Jan 6, 2007
    5
    It has some pretty awesome units and weapons, but it also took a few steps back from where RTS has advanced. For instance, some units just get lost, and it's hard to locate them camoflauged into the scenary. That type of thing just frustrates be, and creates dumb mistakes that just make levels take longer for good reason. Still, I played through a few of the levels until I decided it It has some pretty awesome units and weapons, but it also took a few steps back from where RTS has advanced. For instance, some units just get lost, and it's hard to locate them camoflauged into the scenary. That type of thing just frustrates be, and creates dumb mistakes that just make levels take longer for good reason. Still, I played through a few of the levels until I decided it wasn't worth my time. Expand
  26. HankinC.
    Jan 3, 2007
    6
    I really liked warhammer 40k so I wanted to try this one out. My computer is only 2yrs old nvidia 5200 card, and I have to turn the thing down to the lowest setting before it's playable so I'm probably missing out on all the pretty graphics everyone else is talking about. There's a memory leak in the game, if you play it a few games the loading times get longer and longer. I really liked warhammer 40k so I wanted to try this one out. My computer is only 2yrs old nvidia 5200 card, and I have to turn the thing down to the lowest setting before it's playable so I'm probably missing out on all the pretty graphics everyone else is talking about. There's a memory leak in the game, if you play it a few games the loading times get longer and longer. Don't know why people are talking about the destructable environment, the only things I could destroy on the map are fences/sandbags and buildings. There's way too much micro management: You get 8+ units to control and each unit complete their task in a few seconds, unless you're superhuman quick most of your units will be idle. The stupid anti-tank guns don't shoot when there's an enemy right in front of it you have to manually move it into the direction of the enemy, annoying! The shooting from behind/hiding behind objects manoeuvres are nice ideas but unfortunately it only adds to this micro management nightmare. It's not noticeable in the mission game but in skirmish vs. normal computer it's unplayable unless you keep on pressing the pause button every few seconds to do these micro management bits, all the guys giving this game a 10 should try skirmish mode. However I do like the offensive nature of the game, alot of rts reward you for sitting on your arse defending till you've got an over the top invincible army. Expand
  27. GeneralJ.
    Dec 20, 2006
    7
    Not so real rts but really funny. If you like this play it but i recommend game FACES OF WAR. In COH tanks can be destroyed only by other tanks, soldiers can't even hurt them with their weak grenades. so good so bad....
  28. AB
    Oct 11, 2006
    6
    Although it is very similar to Dawn of War, it has some pretty major problems. Not only are the loading times awful, but the camera doesn't scroll properly without jittering unless you turn everythiing onto very low. Also, with 3 resources, why should one be HUGELY bigger than all the others? The game does NOT let you build a big army and field it properly - the armies are small and Although it is very similar to Dawn of War, it has some pretty major problems. Not only are the loading times awful, but the camera doesn't scroll properly without jittering unless you turn everythiing onto very low. Also, with 3 resources, why should one be HUGELY bigger than all the others? The game does NOT let you build a big army and field it properly - the armies are small and difficult to control properly. Very unrealistic compared to a real war, I imagine. The tanks keep crashing into each other when you ask them to go forwards. In summary, it is simple. The game is a mish-mash of Dawn of War and the Red Alert series. The action is slower paced than Red Alert and there is a very poor variety of units to use - don't expect any control over any proper aircraft. It is less exciting than Red Alert and the 'base building' aspect of it is VERY poor - slow and few. Expand
  29. NateR.
    Sep 26, 2006
    6
    Great graphics and sound. But too-close camera views and hyper-paced battles mean you really just win battles by mobbing the enemy with excessive force. Very little actual strategy involved. Definitely over-hyped.
  30. SteveG.
    Sep 22, 2006
    5
    ATI owners BEWARE....I own a 9600XT and all shadows in the game are pure dark blocks that look like they are at 640x480 (though I'm running at 800 x 600 and 1024 X 768). The boards have also shown many issues with the higher end X1900 series of cards and Crossfire is also bugged. It seems that with this new engine, Relic "took the money and ran" .. to Nvidia that is Serving onlyATI owners BEWARE....I own a 9600XT and all shadows in the game are pure dark blocks that look like they are at 640x480 (though I'm running at 800 x 600 and 1024 X 768). The boards have also shown many issues with the higher end X1900 series of cards and Crossfire is also bugged. It seems that with this new engine, Relic "took the money and ran" .. to Nvidia that is Serving only about 50-60% of pc owners (Nvidia) and ignoring the rest (ATI) is not the way to make a million selling game. Maybe they will patch it, but most likely not as it appears that they only coded shadows in the Nvidia format. Again, ATI users --- TRY AT YOUR OWN RISK. Sad thing is that the game looks amazing. Expand
  31. Kyleb
    Sep 21, 2006
    7
    So let me get this straight. This game is BETTER than Warcraft 3 according to this site and most of the reviews. And I'm the Easter Bunny. It's a decent game with great graphics, but no way does it compare to the epic WC3. Mick N is full of crap giving it a one, but let's not get our fanboy panties up in a bunch about this game. It's only got TWO forces for oneSo let me get this straight. This game is BETTER than Warcraft 3 according to this site and most of the reviews. And I'm the Easter Bunny. It's a decent game with great graphics, but no way does it compare to the epic WC3. Mick N is full of crap giving it a one, but let's not get our fanboy panties up in a bunch about this game. It's only got TWO forces for one thing. And no way does it generate anything like the envolvement I had with the WC3 heroes, or the exploratory diablo-like secondary gameplay. Expand
  32. DarrenSharrocks
    Aug 21, 2006
    6
    Nothing new, just the same build the base, at the moment in the beta, the allies have all the artillery, para etc, and best infantry. They can use any troops or tanks to spot for artillery barrages. Germans have great tanks, good Anti tank guns, esp the 88s, can get artillery but its late in the game. The germans have poor infantry, but can get mgs faster, ostwind is good, but thats aboutNothing new, just the same build the base, at the moment in the beta, the allies have all the artillery, para etc, and best infantry. They can use any troops or tanks to spot for artillery barrages. Germans have great tanks, good Anti tank guns, esp the 88s, can get artillery but its late in the game. The germans have poor infantry, but can get mgs faster, ostwind is good, but thats about it.Overall at the moment game is unblanced to hell. Good graphics, etc, nice explosions, good buldings and able to manning them. Yet again no trenches.
    Over all nice game but its just the same concept nothing new here, really just the same as command and conquer and that is nearly 10 years old.
    Expand
Metascore
93

Universal acclaim - based on 55 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 55 out of 55
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 55
  3. Negative: 0 out of 55
  1. Company of Heroes should be on the must-play list of every RTS fanatic out there, even those tired of WWII settings. It's just that good. [Oct. 2006, p.70]
  2. This is the finest WWII strategy game I've played. Hell, I'm having real trouble thinking of any strategy game that's this spectacular, this intense, this fun. [Oct 2006, p.70]
  3. 94
    The transformation from a idyllic little town into a heap of crushed buildings and burned out husks of vehicles can be shocking. Seeing and hearing major explosions that cause bodies (and bits of bodies) to fly across the screen along with rubble from a nearby building simply puts you more into the battle than any RTS in memory.