In game you could decide, as the situation demanded, which tree you played, followed then by two different paths further choice as to how far up the path you go before you pick the low hanging fruit of the other path. One of the core features of the original was the commander tree abilities. It also introduces an incredible boring grind reward system which is better suited to MMO's whose entire raison d'etre is 'the grind'. Here is why: Despite the new game having better graphics (more particles, more gritty, more detail), it fails to improve on anything else from the original, and actually removes many fun or simply informative features. And more than any sequel, Coh1 and Coh2 ARE the same game, and well CoH1 still does it MUCH better. Wrong! Considering its basically the same game engine, and the core idea is kept the same, you HAVE to, since if two games are the same, naturally you should pick the game which does it best.

Finally some reviewers are going to say you should not review this game by comparing it to the original. It causes much controversy over how historically accurate/fair it is and i feel it has little to do with the point of the CoH franchise, which has always been the incredibly fun multiplayer and innovative unit dynamic and terrain interplay. Only one 'official' reviewer got it dead right, although he did gave a low score of 20/100, but from what i understand his standards are high. None of them put forth any arguments as to why this game is as good as they claim it is, they just attempt to will it into being. I recommend So i've read plenty of other reviews of this game, and its staunch defenders come across as zealots. So i've read plenty of other reviews of this game, and its staunch defenders come across as zealots.

Company of heroes 2 metacritic