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

Generally favorable reviews- based on 959 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 45 out of 959

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. Mar 31, 2012
    Still playing it in 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  2. Apr 7, 2012
    This game is from 2006 yet i dont know a RTS with better graphics.
    Yet i dont know a game with more strategy.
    Yet i dont know a game with more mods.
    Yet i dont know a game with better dynamic combat.
    This is a underrated masterpiece!!
  3. Oct 14, 2012
    I haven't played multiplayer yet and my review is restricted to the gameplay and singleplayer only. Company of Heroes is one of the best RTS games I've ever played - possibly the best. The graphics look good even today, and the sound is pretty good as well. The game is almost a perfect ten - but it has drawbacks. The biggest complaint I have is the AI. It **** sucks. Infantry is almost completely useless (it can stand 4 meters away from an enemy unit and still require 1000 shots to kill it). If you meet an enemy that's inside a house, you might as well just turn back until you get a tank to come along. This brings me to another point - the tanks. Not only do they suffer from poor AI as well (sometimes they'll mindlessly drive into what you want to attack, which might end up in it getting flanked and shot to bits, instead of attacking from a safe distance. And it's not enough with tanks having poor AI, they are practically necessary to complete anything. If you want to attack an objective, you NEED tanks to clear out the enemy's defence. If not, your infantry will be eaten alive. Basically how the missions play out is that you defend your base until you've gotten a few tanks - then you can launch your offensive. The only thing you need infantry for is to capture objectives.

    There isn't a whole lot of strategy involved either. No need for tactics - getting creative is not necessary at all. Just get a few tanks and steamroll through the level.

    That said, I still love the game and like it very much. It's fun to play, even with the issues it has. I'm looking forward to the sequel - which'll hopefully fix these issues. I definitely recommend this game to anyone who like RTS's or would like to start playing them - you'll have a great time even though it can get a little boring. It's cheap on Steam at the moment, and very much worth the money.
  4. Oct 14, 2011
    This is probably one of the fewest games that defines real-time strategy. This would have been called the Call of Duty RTS game of the century. Excellent graphics, content, story and cinematics make this unique game far better than all the others. Slow gameplay, less FPS usage, less missions, numerous balance issues and big patches are the drawbacks.
  5. Sep 20, 2010
    I have played a lot of RTS (Close Combat, Star Craft, Warcraft I-III, World in Conflict, to name a few), Company of Heroes is the most polished and innovative that I have played. As many have noted the graphics in this game are top notch. The frantic and non-stop action of the game requires a great deal of thought rewarding both the quick and the intelligent. If you enjoy RTS's, you will love this game. Expand
  6. Jan 2, 2012
    This is the best RTS I've ever played, and yeah that's counting Starcraft. I've played over 300 of this game with my friends alone. About another 150 hours on my own, if you want a great RTS this is the game to get especially since it's $10 on steam without specials. Personally not a big fan of the expansions though, which are basically required for multiplayer other than with friends.

    Unit AI, works just fine for those who complain about it are just clicking and forgetting to much. Sure it's not perfect but to give this game a 4 because of it is down right stupid.

    I've also noticed this game has a major historical inaccuracy that greatly effects gameplay. (I assume for balance reasons) Historically during WWII the only tanks that could turn in place was the Panther and Tiger tanks (and a few related versions of those tanks), while no other tanks could do this, but in CoH all tanks can do that. Once again I'll assume it's for balance reasons because the allies would lose a lot more often than necessary.
  7. Sep 12, 2011
    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 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.
  8. Nov 5, 2011
    best strategy game ever. really good and cant stop playing it. tanks are wonderful and taking enemy machine guns and vehicles are so fantastic. i gave it 10 since its best for me
  9. Jan 16, 2012
    Best RTS game ever. It's really realistic with lots of actions. Controlling tanks and spuads of troops to destroy the enemies. Campaign has good varieties of missions, like defending or attack with paratroopers. Skirmish and multiplayer can give you endless actions. I especially like 4 vs 4, because it requires teamwork and you can rely on your ally to help you. This is a really amazing game.
  10. Feb 8, 2012
    One of the WORST!!! Games i have ever played... just a bad camera position, far too close to get a good overview, especially because you have to micro your soldiers all the time!! all of your units... they get nothing done and often do things first after the 3rd or 4th direction. They are unable to find the shortest way and some times just run in with enemy fire instead of attacking, very unuseful for a mortar for example. The online don't run anyway and there is no support... i am scared of THQ giving their name for such a crap. If you want do something good, don't buy this! Expand
  11. Aug 7, 2013
    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.
  12. Mar 7, 2013
    Never has the RTS genre seen anything like this. Company of Heroes is rightfully, the highest rated game of its kind. And to this day, no other game in the likes holds a candle to its gameplay and tactical immersion. Every battle is something new and exciting, this is one of those games that never gets old.
  13. Jun 6, 2013
    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.
  14. May 10, 2012
    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.
  15. Feb 25, 2011
    This is my second favorite game of all time, and I'm still playing it long after I gave up my favorite game of all time (Battlefield 2). It's probably one of the most replayable games of all time. It keeps things relatively simple yet provides endless ways to play.
  16. Mar 13, 2011
    Definitely best game ever, much better than so many other RTS as theres much more to think about, much more tactical play, and awesome replayability, Fave game still after over five years
  17. May 15, 2011
    This is the greatest game WW2 RTS ever made. Its graphics and ganmeplay are mind blowing and with updates its even better. I hope this franchise is expanded
  18. Apr 9, 2012
    A jaunt through the multi and even single-player modes of this game will lead you to the inevitable conclusion that this is the greatest and most innovative RTS of all time, no questions asked.

    The gameplay is infinitely replayable, terrain truly matters, and the micro is so detailed without ever becoming overwhelming or tedious. This is a game that makes full use of its available

    Most of all, mastering this game requires intelligence, not block-headed keyboard mashing. If you still haven't bought this yet, it's on Amazon for $14. Why don't you own it?
  19. Jul 29, 2011
    I have played this extensively and YES the graphics and sound effects are AMAZING, and is mostly good for massive battles and intense firefights. I give it a 10 because I have not once gotten bored of it over the last 4 years I've had it. Great game, AI needs some work, I highly recommend this game. P.S. Anyone who rated this game badly never gave it a BIT of a chance, don't listen to them please.
  20. Jul 3, 2012
    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.
  21. Oct 17, 2011
    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
  22. Sep 2, 2011
    Hell of a game. It's 5 years old, but still very good looking, unrivalled gameplay. Squad based infantry, very tactical because you can cut off important strategy points. Excellent cover system. Great tank mechanics. factions are very good balanced. Mulitplayer still totally vivid. On weekend there are more then 8000 players online. Great for a 5 year old game.
  23. Oct 27, 2013
    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.
  24. May 1, 2012
    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.
  25. Aug 10, 2012
    love this game. the system works well and the enemies offer a challenge. the games upgrade system feels satisfying and doesn't feel a worthless waste of points. I enjoyed the game from beginning to end and will consider buying the sequel when I've finished the game I'm playing now
  26. Sep 12, 2012
    You know what? This is one of those few non-crappy RTSs I ever played. The gameplay is addicting, i barely see any flaws. THQ you did a really good job.
  27. May 30, 2013
    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 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
  28. Aug 30, 2013
    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.
  29. Sep 8, 2012
    "It's like Dawn of War in WW2!" More like improved version of Dawn of War. And there's nothing bad about it right now. Yeah, sometimes it's actually good to keep very similiar gameplay! Take that C- oh wait I hate that game too... The gameplay is very similiar to Dawn of War (Not in a bad way) but the additions improve the gameplay a lot and add more depth. Since there are now three different kind of control points to capture, it's now more important to decide what you want to capture first. It also adds more dirty things to do like stealing the ammunation points to prevent enemy from spamming artillery strikes. Add the fact that you need to keep control points around it secured to make use of the resources you get, there are a lot more things to do to stop the enemy. The gameplay is the most intense I've encountered in a strategy game. Playing 3vs3 is simply amazing in this game. This game is definently one of the best strategy games released. The gameplay is great and was improved from Dawn of War in right places with very good additions. You DON'T avoid this game. You'll buy this game, play 3vs3 (Or 4vs4 and such), and have a lot of fun. 24/7. Expand
  30. Aug 14, 2010
    The best RTS ever made, without question - no game, not even simulators like Theatre of War approach the depth and variety of CoH. One of the few games that gives you such options in battle, and is the only RTS where you can truly use and manipulate terrain and neutral world structures to turn the tide of battle. Use a howitzer to create a heavy cover point for advancing infantry? You bet. Build your own cover? Sandbags coming right upt. That hedgerow blocking your advance? Not if my demolition pack has anything to say.

    No RTS game approaches the sheer variety, depth and brilliance of CoH. I've been playing since release and it still amazes me the new strategies and environmental tactics that pop up.

    A master work of game design, no RTS fan should miss it.

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.