Discussion - Current state of Tournaments

Company of Heroes 1 had some seriously shit mechanics that made the cut, though. Global upgrades are one thing, but economic upgrades can add to the snowball effect which was seriously reduced in Company of Heroes 2. Manpower income is another thing that was entirely unnecessary, as was purchased veterancy in any way, shape, or form. They even included zombie squads, which I successfully feedback-sabotaged during the pre-alpha.

You didn't play CoH1 and you're claiming that CoH3 is too much like CoH1... Idk what to say. I can't even debate this with you because you wouldn't know what I'm talking about. The people who feel the same way are equally clueless. It's CoH2 fans who think they have figured out CoH even though they've only seen a tiny part of its history. Had the same thing with a guy on reddit claiming that DAK is a PE clone without ever having played CoH1. I actually made the effort explaining in depth why PE has nothing to do with DAK and he just ignored it and insisted on his point without a single argument.

You think Global Upgrades are the reason CoH3 is bad? The fact that doctrines are now trees with choices rather than linear? All of these things were uncontroversially superior in CoH1 for anyone who has actually played the game. There's zero reason to think they make CoH3 worse. Just like there are plenty of things that were superior in CoH2 and are thus present in CoH3. Design wise it is a very good amalgamation of CoH2 and CoH1.

80% of the community team is 1v1 players? What? Are you in the community team? Where the hell did you get that from? It's once again completely incorrect.

Yeah, I worded it wrong. I tried COH1 after I bought COH2 just to see what it was like. So who is in the community team then? If Relic wasn`t so intransparent about everything I wouldn`t complain. I know that AE, Whiteflash, Luvnest and DevM are part of it. What are the teamgame players in the community team Aerafield and a handful others?

I’m not quoting you because I’m on my phone and the page would be too long.

@gia

But agree to disagree. There is definitely “clicks” in the COH scene. Let’s just say I find the most arrogant players almost unanimously 1s mains. I’m not saying there’s arrogant team game people. But it’s funny when people try to shine a bad light on players based off game mode and not their performance.

People like higher TTK because people don’t like being punished. Higher TTK makes it easier for everyone to be “good” or have a better chance at winning games. Because it removes catastrophes. People not paying attention and losing squads. People think higher TTK some how makes the game more tactical. Even though I don’t know how you can argue that at all? Because it removes a key element form an RTS. Timing, and positioning power. I’m not saying you don’t understand because you seem to like lower TTK. But for everyone else. If you ambush a squad with a CQB unit you should reap the rewards of forcing that unit to retreat/wipe. Not they casually soft retreat to another squad and win the engagement. That is the problem with high TTK. There’s no more OH FUCK moments. When a shock troop shows up out of nowhere. Or a PGREN is on your retreat path. On top of they dramatically reduced squad wipes on retreat. With the whole retreating buffs rework. It may not be intentional. But it seems it’s geared to make things “easier” for everyone. Which is fine. But shortens the ceiling of gameplay.

Kimbo is best known for the playstyle in COH2 and I try to implement it as well when possible. But in COH2 you could straight up win games by sacrificing some map control to get a juicy envelopment and wipe half your opponents army. It was a hidden win condition in COH2 that you ignore VPs and map control. To out position your opponent. Cripple him substantially. He then can no longer contest you. Doesn’t seem possible in COH3.

TTK is bad because Inconsistent accross weapons profle.

Vanilla weapons have a range from average to extremely bad TTK with the exception of Sappers and Pathfinder.
Upgrade weapons have good TTK which make the gap with units that can't upgrade their own weapon really huge.

So for Instance, a riflemen with BAR have superior TTK than Panzergrenadier because the second don't upgrade their weapon, it is even more evident once you put 2 BARs on them. What I haven't been able to figure out is if buying their veterancy make Panzergrenadier having better TTK, it shouldn't but I have this weird feeling it does. Need to make more test. But the same situation repeat with Obers (can't remember they're new name), they have bad TTK because their weapon is native even though they're supposed to beat other infantry. (And hitting the field so late doesn't help either)

But anyway, that's my opinion on TTK. Or vanilla weapons are undertuned, or upgrade weapons are overtuned. I probably need to upload my last match or make a video from it to make my point more evident because boy it was ridiculously evident in it.

Someone said that a single player campaign is not needed in strategies. I don't think tournaments are needed. Watching tournaments is incredibly boring. The human brain is designed so that it is more interesting to do it yourself than to watch. I don't know about others, but it's incredibly boring and unpleasant for me to watch how others play, my brain begins to analyze and think about how I should have done. Watching a tournament just causes discomfort.

I’m not quoting you because I’m on my phone and the page would be too long.

@gia

But agree to disagree. There is definitely “clicks” in the COH scene. Let’s just say I find the most arrogant players almost unanimously 1s mains. I’m not saying there’s arrogant team game people. But it’s funny when people try to shine a bad light on players based off game mode and not their performance.

People like higher TTK because people don’t like being punished. Higher TTK makes it easier for everyone to be “good” or have a better chance at winning games. Because it removes catastrophes. People not paying attention and losing squads. People think higher TTK some how makes the game more tactical. Even though I don’t know how you can argue that at all? Because it removes a key element form an RTS. Timing, and positioning power. I’m not saying you don’t understand because you seem to like lower TTK. But for everyone else. If you ambush a squad with a CQB unit you should reap the rewards of forcing that unit to retreat/wipe. Not they casually soft retreat to another squad and win the engagement. That is the problem with high TTK. There’s no more OH FUCK moments. When a shock troop shows up out of nowhere. Or a PGREN is on your retreat path. On top of they dramatically reduced squad wipes on retreat. With the whole retreating buffs rework. It may not be intentional. But it seems it’s geared to make things “easier” for everyone. Which is fine. But shortens the ceiling of gameplay.

Kimbo is best known for the playstyle in COH2 and I try to implement it as well when possible. But in COH2 you could straight up win games by sacrificing some map control to get a juicy envelopment and wipe half your opponents army. It was a hidden win condition in COH2 that you ignore VPs and map control. To out position your opponent. Cripple him substantially. He then can no longer contest you. Doesn’t seem possible in COH3.

COH3 TTK might be off but I have to disagree with your reasoning and if there an issue it has do with more that just TTK.

Getting wipes and having big explosions might be "spectacular" but this type of play style where "micro" makes all difference belongs to games like LOL not RTS.

RTS games should have "strategies" in them and not just "micro". Player should be reward/penalized for their decision making and not just for their reflex.

This becomes more obvious when cheese tactic are involved like grenades wipes from invisible units.

Imo the problem has more to do with combination of TTK and forward reinforcement/healing/re-crewing availability that leads to stale play style.

COH3 TTK might be off but I have to disagree with your reasoning and if there an issue it has do with more that just TTK.

Getting wipes and having big explosions might be "spectacular" but this type of play style where "micro" makes all difference belongs to games like LOL not RTS.

RTS games should have "strategies" in them and not just "micro". Player should be reward/penalized for their decision making and not just for their reflex.

This becomes more obvious when cheese tactic are involved like grenades wipes from invisible units.

Imo the problem has more to do with combination of TTK and forward reinforcement/healing/re-crewing availability that leads to stale play style.

You do realize that maneuvering onto your opponents retreat path. Anticipating their retreat, along with forcing a retreat. To then wipe a weak unit. To weaken your opponents overall army power. Is a strategy?. Making it easier for you to do literally everything. Cap VPs/points win engagements. Because they are fighting with a smaller army than you after you wipe a unit. You do realize that is a strategy? If you don’t like that strategy. It doesn’t mean it should be nerfed. Because people don’t like it. Yea bro I hate when I get outplayed by my opponent because he wiped my entire army because I over extended. It’s extremely difficult to wipe units on retreat in COH3. Way too much forgiveness. It’s basically turned into forget everything just press T. You’ll be okay.

COH is a very forgiving game when it comes to micro. There are a lot of top level players with low APM. But it also allows micro to have an impact. Your comment about invisible grenades. You lack discipline in playing then. It’s that simple. There are numerous units that reveal cloaked units. Your inability to employ them does not make cloaked units “cheesy”. Build a 222.

They nerfed forward reinforcement pretty hard. For the better. But TTK is still trash. Like exsile said. There is no dramatic distinction between weapon profiles. I don’t know why assault grens take ages to win an engagement close range. Or why double BAR riflemen take ages to win an engagement medium to close range. Nothing makes sense.

Yeah, I worded it wrong. I tried COH1 after I bought COH2 just to see what it was like. So who is in the community team then? If Relic wasn`t so intransparent about everything I wouldn`t complain. I know that AE, Whiteflash, Luvnest and DevM are part of it. What are the teamgame players in the community team Aerafield and a handful others?

Well I personally think there should be a public testing version of the game for the sake of transparecy and better data due to more people playing and the closed group should be dissolved. I don't really see any point in keeping the development processs secret. But that's besides the point and not up to us to decide.

As I said before it seems to me that Relic doesn't care about WhiteFlash probably because of how strong his opinions are (speculation on my part). I don't know what makes you think that he's in any closed groups. I don't know of any WhiteFlash involvement. I can 100% assure you that 1. You overestimate the influence of the closed group and 2. It is not dominated by 1v1 players. I can't go into detail due to NDA ... hurr durr I know it sounds cringe.

Btw the "1v1 player dominance" narrative was already factually incorrect for the balance team in CoH2. It was a fairly balanced mix of teamgame, 2v2 and 1v1 players. Also the mere fact that someone is a 1v1 player doesn't mean that they're not wary of teamgame interests. Someone like Jibber is a pure 1v1 player but that doesn't change the fact that teamgame players benefit more from his contributions than they would from fellow teamgame players, simply because of the effort he puts into finding bugs and his well reasoned inputs.

You having tried CoH1 is good to hear. But I still doubt that you have anything close to the in depth knowledge you have in CoH2. Correct me if I'm wrong. The same goes for all the other people having made that argument. No one who has actually played CoH1 extensively has made this claim, maybe they are onto something? CoH1 just is better in certain ways and that's why CoH3 is more like CoH1 in those respects. Again, there may be controversial CoH1 like elements but saying the similarities to CoH1 are anything close to the main reason this game fails is crazy. I don't get why people who have not played both games extensively could confidently claim otherwise.

You do realize that maneuvering onto your opponents retreat path. Anticipating their retreat, along with forcing a retreat. To then wipe a weak unit. To weaken your opponents overall army power. Is a strategy?. Making it easier for you to do literally everything. Cap VPs/points win engagements. Because they are fighting with a smaller army than you after you wipe a unit. You do realize that is a strategy? If you don’t like that strategy. It doesn’t mean it should be nerfed. Because people don’t like it. Yea bro I hate when I get outplayed by my opponent because he wiped my entire army because I over extended. It’s extremely difficult to wipe units on retreat in COH3. Way too much forgiveness. It’s basically turned into forget everything just press T. You’ll be okay.

What kind of situations are you describing exactly?

While it is difficult to wipe units if they are retreating from your face, its not hard to wipe squads on retreat if you have multiple squads with automatic weapons waiting on the retreat path. Of course if retreating squad has reasonably low HP.

The only major difference is that its much harder to wipe squads with stock bolt action rifles. Since in CoH2 you basically had ability to one-shot models with them, if RNG was on your side.

I’m not quoting you because I’m on my phone and the page would be too long.

@gia

But agree to disagree. There is definitely “clicks” in the COH scene. Let’s just say I find the most arrogant players almost unanimously 1s mains. I’m not saying there’s arrogant team game people. But it’s funny when people try to shine a bad light on players based off game mode and not their performance.

People like higher TTK because people don’t like being punished. Higher TTK makes it easier for everyone to be “good” or have a better chance at winning games. Because it removes catastrophes. People not paying attention and losing squads. People think higher TTK some how makes the game more tactical. Even though I don’t know how you can argue that at all? Because it removes a key element form an RTS. Timing, and positioning power. I’m not saying you don’t understand because you seem to like lower TTK. But for everyone else. If you ambush a squad with a CQB unit you should reap the rewards of forcing that unit to retreat/wipe. Not they casually soft retreat to another squad and win the engagement. That is the problem with high TTK. There’s no more OH FUCK moments. When a shock troop shows up out of nowhere. Or a PGREN is on your retreat path. On top of they dramatically reduced squad wipes on retreat. With the whole retreating buffs rework. It may not be intentional. But it seems it’s geared to make things “easier” for everyone. Which is fine. But shortens the ceiling of gameplay.

Kimbo is best known for the playstyle in COH2 and I try to implement it as well when possible. But in COH2 you could straight up win games by sacrificing some map control to get a juicy envelopment and wipe half your opponents army. It was a hidden win condition in COH2 that you ignore VPs and map control. To out position your opponent. Cripple him substantially. He then can no longer contest you. Doesn’t seem possible in COH3.

I completely agree that there is WAY too much leeway for repositioning after bad decisions in CoH3. Also the game just feels off because close range units in particular lack punch. I don't think lower TTK is bad in every respect. For instance I think model snipes at long range happened a bit too fast in CoH2. Accidently running into your enemy in the early game could be a bit too punishing for that reason and long range units felt too easy to use. I also think the retreat blob gameplay is a bit of a double edged sword. On the one hand you're right that it enabled a different kind of gameplay. But on the other hand once people adjust to it it kinda just leads to no one taking any risks and a very static frontline as a consequence. Going deep in CoH2 was always suuuper risky. More so than it should be imo.

And one of the things that bugs me te most is the sheer number of identified problems that were in coh2 such as OP loiter, forward reinforcement, call-ins that were PATCHED. So relic should have known about these and yet we have to see the same stupid design mechanics and then nerf. That might be the thing that infuriate me the most, making the same mistakes again and again.

And for the idea that coh3 is developped for 1v1, I havnt seen relic promote a single 1v1 tourny in ages. I'm pretty sure that if there is more map in the 1v1 gamemode it is because these were maps designed for the campaign where games are a single player against a single AI.

And yes tournament are just unfun to watch, way more than coh2 and I don't really have an answer to that... Even when I want to understand a certain strategy I get bored very fast somehow; so I end up playing a bit and then stop.

I'm so tired

Game is poop right now, won't be bothering with it till it has way more content.

The sound design lacks impact, the maps aren't very good and meta strats develop too quickly because they insist on just nerfing strong units, instead of leaving the strong units as they are and making less used units more desirable to purchase.

What kind of situations are you describing exactly?

While it is difficult to wipe units if they are retreating from your face, its not hard to wipe squads on retreat if you have multiple squads with automatic weapons waiting on the retreat path. Of course if retreating squad has reasonably low HP.

The only major difference is that its much harder to wipe squads with stock bolt action rifles. Since in CoH2 you basically had ability to one-shot models with them, if RNG was on your side.

In general it is more difficult. Because your damage is now halved on retreat. So where micro could be implemented “grenades on retreat” it’s not worth it now. Even the mind games of tossing a grenade to the side or a little behind cover in hopes your opponent dodges onto it. Are now void. Because it’s just better to retreat.

Example in COH2 top players would sometimes launch a rifle nade into the squads retreat path before the squad retreats. Hoping the player hears the grenade que and then retreats the squad to avoid it. But runs right into the grenade. This would usually result in a wipe or very close to it. It’s a very HIGH risk/skill/reward. If pulled off correctly the player gets a squad wipe for implementing TACTICS (omg no way). But if he misses or it’s dodged or the bluff is called. He loses munitions. In COH3 just retreat. Because it doesn’t matter if you retreat right through a grenade now because your damage is reduced to where you will likely only incur health damage.

This adds to the even BAR riflemen. Or any squads with automatic weapons. Like the units now have to be EXTREMELY low to be wiped. EXTREMELY. To the point it’s not really worth sacrificing map control for big flanks to try and wipe units. I don’t see the justification of them reworking retreating buffs besides making it harder to wipe units on retreat.

Green cover as well is now useless against grenades. It’s almost always better retreat, then try to dodge. Which removes elements from engagements. You used to be able to tank grenades behind green cover and still possibly win the engagement. Now if you want to make a squad move from green cover you don’t have to out maneuver your opponent. Just grenade spam

Because your damage is now halved on retreat. So where micro could be implemented “grenades on retreat” it’s not worth it now. Even the mind games of tossing a grenade to the side or a little behind cover in hopes your opponent dodges onto it. Are now void. Because it’s just better to retreat.

Well its true to some extend, except for maybe PGs\Guards because from my experience they can be used to wipe squads on retreat.

But again, retreating in CoH3 with all its phasing is punished way more, because maps are significantly bigger. In CoH2 most of the 2v2\4v4 maps are about the size of a 1v1\2v2 map of COH3, or at least in feels like it. In CoH2 whole idea of retreat being a bad thing, was basically replaced with wipes, because 1v1\2v2 had incredibly small maps, so you was able to be back in action in a fraction of a time it takes in 3. 3v3\4v4 had big maps (which were the least popular), but even they were sabotaged by forward retreat points.

I personally have 50\50 opinion here. On one hand, ability to predict impact is good, as well as not being screwed by RNG, on the other hand, game sometimes do feel forgiving for some idiotic or greedy moves, especially if player who is doing them have time to spare, since he is only really punished via time he wasted.

So I would say units during retreats should be easier to wipe, but not as easy as it was in CoH2, because its balanced out by different factors, which weren't present in 2.

I don’t see the justification of them reworking retreating buffs besides making it harder to wipe units on retreat.

My guess would be because of VP drain and how fast teching is. In CoH1\2 you was in a disadvantage if you sustained multiple wipes, but you realistically had time to recover, in CoH3 you basically have chance of recovering only if your army is already established and if you aren't triple caped. Not a fan of this one myself, but this is a consequences of stupid VP drain change.

Or it could be simple Relics overtune. Because during Alpha tests it was incredibly easy to wipe retreating squads, which resulted in one player snowballing like crazy.

Green cover as well is now useless against grenades. It’s almost always better retreat, then try to dodge.

This one is kinda strange. I've personally always hated it in CoH2, when a guy got lucky and was able to tank a nade, especially considering that he should be punished for not dodging it. Still, I do believe, nades in 2 across the board were much faster to throw. This includes audio notification, nade throwing speed and so on. In CoH3 its much easier to dodge them, yet if you failed to, you are punished more.

So situations where its better to just retreat, are situations where you would gamble in 2, trying to tank them with your face and continue fighting.

You do realize that maneuvering onto your opponents retreat path. Anticipating their retreat, along with forcing a retreat. To then wipe a weak unit. To weaken your opponents overall army power. Is a strategy?. Making it easier for you to do literally everything. Cap VPs/points win engagements. Because they are fighting with a smaller army than you after you wipe a unit. You do realize that is a strategy? If you don’t like that strategy. It doesn’t mean it should be nerfed. Because people don’t like it. Yea bro I hate when I get outplayed by my opponent because he wiped my entire army because I over extended. It’s extremely difficult to wipe units on retreat in COH3. Way too much forgiveness. It’s basically turned into forget everything just press T. You’ll be okay.

COH is a very forgiving game when it comes to micro. There are a lot of top level players with low APM. But it also allows micro to have an impact. Your comment about invisible grenades. You lack discipline in playing then. It’s that simple. There are numerous units that reveal cloaked units. Your inability to employ them does not make cloaked units “cheesy”. Build a 222.

They nerfed forward reinforcement pretty hard. For the better. But TTK is still trash. Like exsile said. There is no dramatic distinction between weapon profiles. I don’t know why assault grens take ages to win an engagement close range. Or why double BAR riflemen take ages to win an engagement medium to close range. Nothing makes sense.

It seems that we are drifting away from my point.

In your original post you seem to support that low TTK is good and High TTK is bad which is a oversimplification.

For instance in COH2 IS had (relatively) high TTK could kill a enemy model at first contact with the first volley. That was actually pretty bad and thus changed.

I mentioned before TTK might be off in COH3 but that it a more complicated issue than just TTK.

One should create weapon profiles that encourage relative positioning and avoid certain weapon combination.

What on earth are you talking about. It actually boggles my mine that someone who was around for CoH2's launch would make such a claim. CoH2 was barely playable. It had ABYSMAL performance both in terms of input lag and FPS. It had HORRENDOUS core design. The whole game revolved around ridiculous AoE damage, absurdly high ranged super units and other super gimmicky shit. It had the worst feature of CoH history in the form of Col tech. It got reviewbombed to pieces. It certainly didn't have 85% positive. I don't remember the exact score but I'm not confident that it wasn't lower than CoH3. Everybody who had been hyped for the game was completely disillusioned. People who had had big plans for COH2 quit the game for good after a few months to a year (Tommy, Fatal, Ami etc.). It had paid commanders from the start. It had no ladder at all for months.

Then march deployment happened and the core gameplay improved massively. But roughly at the same time relic released the most bonkers P2W commanders in CoH history. All the stuff people call OP these days is a joke in comparison. These commanders would almost literally autowin the game for you. Saying CoH2 never dropped below the player count of its predecessor also makes zero sense because CoH1 had not been a steam game until then and transitioned to steam servers at that time which basically killed the game.

You make some good points, especially the one about coh1 not being a steam game, which is an oversight on my part.
However, as Spitfire said, I am talking about the overall state of the game. Coh3 surely has strong points like optimization, but also some serious weaknesses, most of all presentation. Coh2 is a beautiful game to this day, coh3 has overall good graphics, but I wouldn't say that they are really special apart from the vehicle damage model. Anyway, I am not keen on iterating every point here.
The player numbers speak for themselves: coh3 cannot retain players as coh2 could. We're not even 3 months after launch, and numbers for coh3 are as bad - if not worse - than for coh2 at the lowest point the game ever had. And this despite coh3 starting with 50% more players at launch, allegedly more single player content etc etc. Relic has always been slow on patches, but the environment in the gaming industry has changed in the last 10 years: gamers expect now quicker patches and fixing of the prosuct (which surely is due in part to more games being released in a broken state). Relic does not do itself a favor by not adressing issues quickly enough and bad communication.
The longer this process takes, the harder it becomes to salvage. Old Relic has shown they can pull it off though. New Relic did a decent job with fixing AoE4 as well, and the community in coh is pretty sticky and will try out the game a couple of months down the line. The longer Relic takes, the worse the chances get though, especially if Sega becomes doubtful that the game can be salvaged

Getting wipes and having big explosions might be "spectacular" but this type of play style where "micro" makes all difference belongs to games like LOL not RTS.

RTS games should have "strategies" in them and not just "micro". Player should be reward/penalized for their decision making and not just for their reflex.

Just a quick note on this one:
As far as strategy games go, coh has been on the very micro heavy side.
There is no real economy to manage as in most and especially classic RTS games, base building is non-existant either, and additionally it portrays smaller battles. You're not managing hundreds of units, you're having about 10 squads/units before you're pop capped. If there is any game loop to be had, it is about the exact positioning of units, movement and timing of abilities. The only non-micro elements are army composition decisions and if you focus on munitions or fuel. That's the way it has worked since coh1.

You make some good points, especially the one about coh1 not being a steam game, which is an oversight on my part.
However, as Spitfire said, I am talking about the overall state of the game. Coh3 surely has strong points like optimization, but also some serious weaknesses, most of all presentation. Coh2 is a beautiful game to this day, coh3 has overall good graphics, but I wouldn't say that they are really special apart from the vehicle damage model. Anyway, I am not keen on iterating every point here.
The player numbers speak for themselves: coh3 cannot retain players as coh2 could. We're not even 3 months after launch, and numbers for coh3 are as bad - if not worse - than for coh2 at the lowest point the game ever had. And this despite coh3 starting with 50% more players at launch, allegedly more single player content etc etc. Relic has always been slow on patches, but the environment in the gaming industry has changed in the last 10 years: gamers expect now quicker patches and fixing of the prosuct (which surely is due in part to more games being released in a broken state). Relic does not do itself a favor by not adressing issues quickly enough and bad communication.
The longer this process takes, the harder it becomes to salvage. Old Relic has shown they can pull it off though. New Relic did a decent job with fixing AoE4 as well, and the community in coh is pretty sticky and will try out the game a couple of months down the line. The longer Relic takes, the worse the chances get though, especially if Sega becomes doubtful that the game can be salvaged

You underestimate how subjective presentation is. You're saying CoH2 looks good to this day but the complaints people have about CoH3 are extremely similar to what people were saying about CoH2. Bad contrasts, cartoony, ugly UI. People have an extremely strong bias towards what they are used to.

Edit: And you were saying that conparing the technical state of the games comes down to preference. That's what I was referring to mostly. CoH3 has good playability. The game just works. It may not be very good atm but at least it's not dysfunctional like CoH2.

Just a quick note on this one:
As far as strategy games go, coh has been on the very micro heavy side.
There is no real economy to manage as in most and especially classic RTS games, base building is non-existant either, and additionally it portrays smaller battles. You're not managing hundreds of units, you're having about 10 squads/units before you're pop capped. If there is any game loop to be had, it is about the exact positioning of units, movement and timing of abilities. The only non-micro elements are army composition decisions and if you focus on munitions or fuel. That's the way it has worked since coh1.

Well yes and no.

Coh always had micro but there is difference between COH1 and COH2.

Coh1 give player more decision making than COH2. The tree like commander abilities and tech structure/cost forced player into making decision that had an impact on the game.

In coh2 and especially after the "community" patches decision making become less important.

In COH3 there attempt to return closer to COH1 model (even if not successful implemented) and that imo is a good thing.

Turning the game into a LOL type of game where one controls 10 units instead of one would be bad direction imo.

My original point is that game should not be only about micro with high TTK where, for instance, how well one dodges a grenade wins or lose the game.

You underestimate how subjective presentation is. You're saying CoH2 looks good to this day but the complaints people have about CoH3 are extremely similar to what people were saying about CoH2. Bad contrasts, cartoony, ugly UI. People have an extremely strong bias towards what they are used to.

Edit: And you were saying that conparing the technical state of the games comes down to preference. That's what I was referring to mostly. CoH3 has good playability. The game just works. It may not be very good atm but at least it's not dysfunctional like CoH2.

The problem for CoH3 is that players apparently decide that the strengths of the game are not worth it. Yes, CoH2 got similar critiques, some rightfully, some as you say because it is new and not what everyone is used to, but the extend seems to be different. All the critique did not stop players from playing, at least not as quickly as for CoH3. Like it or not, but despite a bad release as well, CoH2 had something going for it that CoH3 can't replicate. It might be presentation, sound, whatever.
Having a smoothly running game is great, but doesn't help if the game itself is boring. There's people loving CoH3 in its current form. The overall majority however doesn't, and that's why we see a huge drop in player numbers and the efflux is still not stopped. CoH3 has lost players compared to last week, probably another 200 on average (just estimating), which comes down to ~10% of the player base.
Relic partially focused on the casual gamers, but those will not rebuild the game. They either had their fun or didn't, but moved on either way. They're not going to buy a game with 40-55% positive reviews on Steam. Relic has to rebuild it from their main, die hard audience. Which is not what they have been aiming for, and worries me if CoH3 will get the support that it needs to make it a good game.

Well yes and no.

Coh always had micro but there is difference between COH1 and COH2.

Coh1 give player more decision making than COH2. The tree like commander abilities and tech structure/cost forced player into making decision that had an impact on the game.

In coh2 and especially after the "community" patches decision making become less important.

In COH3 there attempt to return closer to COH1 model (even if not successful implemented) and that imo is a good thing.

Turning the game into a LOL type of game where one controls 10 units instead of one would be bad direction imo.

My original point is that game should not be only about micro with high TTK where, for instance, how well one dodges a grenade wins or lose the game.

CoH2 has design issues no doubt about that. Doesn't change the fact that the whole series is very micro intensive. The whole point of the cover system is that the player has to order the squad behind to take cover behind the tractor and not 3 meters next to it. That you need to place that grenade yourself down to the centimeter instead of just clicking the 'throw a grenade' button and it is resolved automatically. That doesn't mean it becomes LOL or any other game, but that's just the way any CoH has been designed from the get go. Therefore, this grenade should also matter. It should not decide about the game, but about the battle between those two squads. As you said, a good strategy game is about decision making. If this grenade doesn't have an impact on the battle, there is no point in the ability, especially no point in having the player control it to the finest position of the throw. If that's not the case, just automate it and let the player focus on the grander scheme of things.
There's a lot of grey areas to the exact outcome obviously, which cannot be properly discussed without having an example. I personally also had the feeling - at least by watching the tournaments - that Coh3 is not punishing enough, that the decision to flanking and other movements doesn't matter enough. CoH2 hasn't hit the sweet spot either, but CoH3 probably doesn't as well.