After extensively playing Burden of Command for a review not too long ago, it led me down another deep dive in World War II content, consuming documentaries, books, and, most relevant here, gaming. Generally, I don’t review games that don’t meet acceptable standards to present to my audience. Company of Heroes 3 was one such game at its launch. So, you might be wondering, how has it fared, two years on?
- Genre: Real-Time Strategy (RTS)
- Developer: Relic Entertainment
- Publisher: SEGA and Relic Entertainment, after splitting from SEGA
- Release Date: 23rd February, 2023
- Price: $49.99/ 54,99€/ £47.99
- Buy at: Steam
- Reviewed On: AMD Ryzen 7 2700X 3.70 GHz, 16GB RAM, NVIDIA GTX 2080
As a gamer, I can’t help but feel let down by the hasty release of Company of Heroes. It seemed like a barrage of issues were unleashed instead of polished gameplay. The graphics were far from complete and inconsistent, the sound design was abysmal, the grand-strategy campaign felt more like a battlefield than a coherent experience, and it was missing essential multiplayer features such as vote to surrender and in-game leaderboards. To add fuel to the fire, the game launched with a fully functional microtransactions store, making the whole ordeal even more infuriating.
Regardless of the initial challenges, Relic Entertainment has remained committed to rectifying issues with Company of Heroes 3 over the past two years, achieving a reasonable level of progress. It’s never easy to recover from a rocky debut, but if games like Rome 2, No Man’s Sky, and Cyberpunk 2077 have managed to bounce back, I am confident that Company of Heroes 3 can do the same.
If you’re wondering what Company of Heroes 3 is, let me clarify: It’s the third edition of the beloved real-time strategy (RTS) game series, centered around World War II. In
The initial installment of Company of Heroes significantly transformed the real-time strategy (RTS) genre by shifting emphasis from base construction and economics to combat scenarios. This was achieved by simplifying the earlier elements and enhancing those on the battlefield. Relic Entertainment introduced a dynamic cover system, enabling units to find shelter behind changing terrain, thus allowing weaker units to outmaneuver stronger ones when exposed. Additionally, they incorporated suppression mechanics, tank armor, and various active abilities for all game units. The success of these features led RTS enthusiasts to embrace the game, earning Company of Heroes a reputation as one of the greatest strategy games ever made. Its cinematic presentation style resembled movies like Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers’ HBO miniseries.
Company of Heroes 2 continued this formula on the D-Day landing sites and moved it to the Eastern Front, introducing new mechanics for a different type of winter warfare, while maintaining the original gameplay structure. This evolution made Company of Heroes 2 the best-selling title in the series thus far.
Company of Heroes 3 advances the series by taking the conflict to North Africa and eventually Italy, but retains the core elements that made the 2006 release so enjoyable, engaging, and visually stunning. I’m delighted to say that these fundamentals have remained as captivating and entertaining as they were when Company of Heroes was first released.
In essence, the 2.0 update significantly revamped every element of Company of Heroes 3, encompassing new maps, upgraded graphics and sound, enhanced AI behavior, a significant redesign of the dynamic Italian campaign, bug fixes, and modifications to company functionality for greater specialization. Additionally, a new veteran system was implemented, unit abilities were altered, movement mechanics were refined, and game balance adjustments were made to expand opportunities for strategic play during mid-game phases before heavy units dominate the battlefield. Indeed, it’s quite an extensive overhaul!
In essence, here’s my take on Company of Heroes 3: Is it a game I find captivating? Absolutely! Has it improved significantly since its launch? Indeed, it has! However, the question that arises is what unique elements does it possess compared to other real-time strategy games (RTS) in the same genre such as Call to Arms – Ostfront, Men of War 2 and Men of War Assault Squad 2, or even upcoming titles like Broken Arrow and established ones like WARNO? While these comparisons might not be entirely fair, it’s clear that there is an overlap in the audience for these games.
Company of Heroes 3 maintains the fundamental aspects of the series consistently, so if you’re familiar with any other games in the franchise, you’ll feel comfortable right away. The core gameplay revolves around the strategic principles of finding, fixing, flanking, and finishing your opponents, tactics that were crucial during World War II. In essence, this means using reconnaissance to get the upper hand by discovering your enemies before they know your location. Next, you need to apply heavy firepower to keep them pinned down or suppressed, limiting their movement effectiveness. Once they’re incapacitated, you can maneuver your troops to outflank and ultimately eliminate the enemy force. Unlike other games where the enemy might surrender instead of being wiped out, Company of Heroes 3 only allows for the destruction of the enemy forces.
The fundamental mechanics of Company of Heroes 3 remain impressive even in 2025, being just as strong as they were nearly two decades ago. However, it’s more straightforward to identify areas for improvement, such as the absence of significant advancements and a sense that the game lacks depth. I believe this is largely due to the chosen setting.
The combination of settings (North Africa and Italy) in this game seems a bit unusual to me. While I appreciate the unique setting, it’s fascinating, truly. Games like Medal of Honor: Breakthrough and Combat Mission: Fortress Italy are among my all-time favorites from World War 2. However, considering the emphasis of Company of Heroes on small-scale combat, the extensive use of its cover system, and the intricate movements of smaller units across the map, it’s a bit peculiar to choose a desert setting, as it contrasts significantly with the Normandy bocage from the original CoH and the Russian cities in the sequel. The open and flat nature of a desert doesn’t seem to support the gameplay formula very well. Maps appear sparse, and chances for flanking maneuvers are scarce.
Transitioning to Italy, geographically it stands as the polar opposite of North Africa, famed for its distinctive topography marked by extensive mountain ranges. These mountains played a significant role in making the Allied campaign, initially perceived as easy, quite challenging. This aspect could have been leveraged effectively if the focus had been on developing strategic gameplay elements that emphasized vertical maps and vertical combat. For instance, movement could have been affected significantly by fighting uphill, or weapon effectiveness could have been influenced by superior positioning. To balance this, a realistic field of view mechanic could have been implemented to prevent defenders from using their heavy machine guns and cannons against units at the base of cliffs. The potential for improvement was immense, it’s unfortunate that no risks were taken in exploiting these possibilities.
In essence, we’ve got a real-time strategy game featuring combat and exploration in intricate environments, complete with an advanced cover system that thrives on restricted viewpoints and info flow. However, the game environment is either a vast desert or a generic Italian landscape. Now, I’m not implying that these settings are poor choices; quite the contrary. But it would be more immersive if the developers chose one setting and fully developed the game around it instead of offering two distinct environments.
The selection made for Company of Heroes 3 seems to indicate a minimal advancement in its gameplay features, bordering on nonexistent innovation. If the open desert environment had been utilized to develop more complex tank-related mechanics or create expansive maps with extended range battles, then the Italy setting could have featured unique mechanics tailored to its terrain and historical conflicts. However, what we get is a repetition of the Company of Heroes formula, which while familiar, lacks the freshness and uniqueness it once had.
If you’re familiar with me, you wouldn’t be shocked to learn I prefer playing video games alone. I enjoy tailoring my gaming experience and don’t find the time or inclination for multiplayer, where I’d have to compete or learn strategies to improve. Strategy games have never been about that for me, and I doubt that will ever change. So, let’s discuss the Rommel campaign – it was forgettable and generic, if you ask me. Unfortunately, I can’t recall any standout moments from the whole experience beyond recognizing it as a series of missions linked together with subpar voice acting for storytelling purposes. It doesn’t reflect historical accuracy, fails to do justice to the North African campaign, and ultimately feels generic. It’s not terrible, but it’s also not exceptional; it simply exists. I hope that gives you a good sense of my thoughts on the matter.
First off, let me share my current experience with the grand strategy campaign – I’m really enjoying it now, despite initially disliking it when it was first released. You see, over time, this part of the game has transformed from its weakest aspect to its strongest. So, why did that happen?
Initially, the campaign was a bit of a mess due to some technical issues, and sometimes the enemy actions didn’t make sense in response to your moves. However, the complete overhaul of the campaign significantly improved it, making it an engaging experience rather than just a monotonous exercise of expanding companies on a map.
In essence, Relic Entertainment faced a challenging task: they aimed to blend the large-scale strategic aspect of World War II with the intricate tactical side. This was tricky because unlike earlier conflicts, which often ended in decisive battles, World War II was characterized by continuous movement and small unit tactics on an unprecedented scale. Battles could stretch across vast distances, with platoons or companies engaging over dozens of kilometers for days or weeks without direct confrontation. The battlefronts were constantly shifting, and the pace of warfare was swift. To successfully bridge this operational gap, they needed a layer of gameplay, much like Mius Front does but on a larger scale than what Relic aimed to accomplish here. Personally, I’ve found the grand strategy campaign incredibly engaging, and in my view, it is the key factor that makes Company of Heroes 3 worthwhile beyond its multiplayer mode.
You command the joint forces of America and Britain, leading them through Italy from south to north, towards Rome. The game progresses in turns on a strategic map, and attacking specific locations triggers real-time strategy battles. Unlike traditional games where every battle is fought, this one focuses only on crucial conflicts near significant Italian towns. While the game isn’t exclusively about these town battles, it does auto-resolve encounters elsewhere to keep the action moving smoothly and avoid repetitive fights on the same maps. The combat system uses a rock-paper-scissors mechanism where certain unit types counter others, providing an adequate balance without overwhelming players with intricate details.
Battles can be seen as either quick scuffles with AI or distinct missions, happening at designated locations. These later missions come with their own narratives and goals that differ significantly from the traditional skirmish format, which revolves around amassing the highest points or controlling certain map areas. They offer a sequence of events and a storyline, designed to present you with fresh and varied challenges. Overall, they’re quite engaging.
In addition to the combat scenes, the game’s strategic map operates in a manner reminiscent of Total War, allowing you to capture territories for unique resources and advantages. These resources can then be utilized to recruit additional units, and so on. The game introduces innovative mechanics such as defensive emplacements, which can be placed strategically around the map to inflict damage upon approaching enemy units. These emplacements can take various forms, including machine gun nests, anti-tank positions, anti-aircraft guns, artillery, and naval batteries. As in rock-paper-scissors, machine gun nests are deadly against infantry units, while anti-tank emplacements target armored groups. These defensive structures can be quite challenging to overcome, adding a layer of realism to the Italians’ and Germans’ prolonged defense campaigns. Previously, I mentioned that the units in the campaign felt somewhat constrained, but I hadn’t realized that you could unlock more units as they gained experience, alleviating that issue. In fact, managing the leveling up of your units can create tension and force tough decisions, as you don’t want to lose a fully upgraded (and crucial) armored unit because it plays an essential role in your strategy.
Without a doubt, this game is definitely worth giving it a shot at least once. It’s an exhilarating experience that offers a refreshing break from the usual World War II games with their realistic settings or complex strategy titles.
In simpler terms, the visuals and audio in Company of Heroes 3 were significantly underwhelming upon release. The graphics were unclear and devoid of detail, the special effects were poor and had little impact, and bullets hitting the ground looked like they were landing on water, which was quite strange and problematic. To put it bluntly, the game’s color scheme was so bad that it could make a sailor sick. The sound design was even more disappointing. In battles, many weapons lacked sound effects, making it seem as if only a few people were firing despite multiple participants. Furthermore, the weapons didn’t have the desired “oomph!”, and when combined with weak explosions and effects, it was like watching Allies and Axis firing Nerf guns at each other.
I’m thrilled to announce that all issues have been addressed and the battles in Company of Heroes 3 look fantastic! The units are intricately detailed with sharp textures and fluid animations. The color palette, tailored perfectly for the Mediterranean backdrop of Company of Heroes 3, is vibrant and soothing. The explosions, wow, I must say that Company of Heroes 3 boasts some of the best explosive effects in the series to date, though they may lean towards being a bit excessive – I can’t complain about that!
As for the sound design, while I still believe that Company of Heroes 1 had more unique unit sounds and voices, it’s evident that this aspect is also undergoing a fresh revamp. Weapons now have a deep, resonant tone, explosions are loud and powerful, and the battles sound like true conflicts, rather than distant gunfire. It’s challenging to find fault with Company of Heroes 3 in terms of its audio-visual presentation.
Compared to games like Men of War 2 and Call to Arms – Ostfront, Company of Heroes 3 offers a unique blend. If you’re familiar with the Men of War engine, transitioning back to Company of Heroes might feel like a scaled-down WW2 real-time strategy experience. However, if you seek an immersive single-player campaign with strategic depth that the others don’t deliver, Company of Heroes 3 could be worth investigating. I’d recommend keeping an eye out for sale prices when it becomes available.
Final Score 7/10
Relic Entertainment has made significant improvements in Company of Heroes 3, and I’m genuinely pleased they did so. This demonstrates the power of determination and dedication, leading to impressive outcomes. While there are many positive aspects of Company of Heroes 3, its single-player desert experience falls short of expectations. Given the potential it had, featuring Rommel commanding the Afrika Korps, one of WW2’s infamous forces, I believe a major DLC focusing on a new southern France campaign could greatly enhance the gameplay. If you’re into competitive multiplayer real-time strategy (RTS), Company of Heroes 3 and its community will keep you entertained for years to come. However, if you’re more of a single-player enthusiast like me, you might find yourself wanting a bit more, but the gameplay is still decent enough to earn Company of Heroes 3 a score of 7/10.
Read More
- Delta Force: K437 Guide (Best Build & How to Unlock)
- One Piece Episode 1129 Release Date and Secrets Revealed
- How to Unlock the Mines in Cookie Run: Kingdom
- Nine Sols: 6 Best Jin Farming Methods
- REPO’s Cart Cannon: Prepare for Mayhem!
- USD ILS PREDICTION
- Top 8 UFC 5 Perks Every Fighter Should Use
- Invincible’s Strongest Female Characters
- Slormancer Huntress: God-Tier Builds REVEALED!
- USD RUB PREDICTION
2025-05-18 01:46