--- note this is covering generally both games rather than just vCoH or CoH2---
...
This was translated well into the original Company of Heroes (and if you watch the campaign cutscenes, there will even be moments where Band of Brothers scenes are played out) and in the faction setups of the original vCoH this was mirrored, with your company being easily able to access standard infantry sections, MGs, mortars etc. This resulted in a fairly even and well balanced game, with Yankees vs Wehrmacht being the original and the best when it came to a good fight, even after Opposing Fronts came out.
although i never played coh1 competitively, i have seen all the SNF4, i have never seen US build their HMG or mortar and many other units. it was either m8 or bar, m8 or bar, m8 or bar. didn't look like band of brothers combined arms existed for those US players at the highest level of coh1.
Fast forward to CoH2 and we have a similar thing, but once again there are some aberrations. The ostheer are the only one following a conventional "Band of Brothers" setup. Ostheer these days gets a lot of hate, but I personally rather like them these days. In my experience they place great emphasis on tactics, movement and positioning, definitely a greater emphasis upon it then all the other factions. Soviets by contrast (whilst having some of the worst faction design in the history of the game), whilst having the full suite of combined arms, are still hamstrung by missing out elite infantry (desperately needed by the) if they forgo T1. If they go for elite infantry by contrast, they forgo their absolutely vital support weaponry. So whilst Ostheer follows a relatively authentic Company setup, the Soviets do not, and thus is the origin of some of their significant early game balance issues.
i disagree on soviet, if they go cons, their tactics and placement just as much as because you basically have to flank weapons teams and either close in or stay away depending on enemy units (grens/sturmpio). i feel more people should try both t1 and t2, they are only (160mp)200mp/50fu per pop. that is less than at-nade + molotov. long gone are days when sov t1/t2 needed 5 hrs to build. i think ability to choose whether to go combined arms or not is better than just being 100% band of brothers.
Now we come to Western Front Armies. Here we have the same deal as Opposing Fronts. The classic set up of a World War II infantry company is thrown out the window and this has left both armies in precarious positions of balance. On the one hand we have the Americans, whose Indirect fire support is frankly pitiful with a few minor outliers, they have an MG which is too easily destroyed and is gunned down by blobs and their options for opening the game are limitted to rifles... rifles... and more rifles. Meanwhile, OKW has no infantry MG (which led to the silliness with the KoenigKubel), no mortar, it's indirect fire is frankly not very good early game, with no mortar, a heavily nerfed infantry gun and an extremely dodgy in the balance department Stuka zu Fuss, which on a bad day kills nothing and on a good day wipes out 2-3 squads in a barrage. To make up for this, the OKW is forced to rely on massive blobs of infantry, infantry whose balance is extremely questionable. In my experience, OKW is the only faction that doesn't reward positioning infantry more than blobbing them. Both factions have significant core balance problems and once again, like Opposing Fronts, this comes down to their not following authentic company set ups.
disagree on USF, although three rifle start seems to be set in stones, not many people yet experimented with rear echelons, and you have other options available with commanders like ass. engi and pathfinders. then you choose between lieutenant or captain. USF HMG is my favourite, they got good damage, good set up time, aoe suppression helps a lot etc etc, but you need very good positioning and care, which i believe you uphold as a good thing from ostheer. pak howi is worth it in my experience. only problem i see with USF is that if you go lieutenant, captain, and major for maximum ultra combined arms, officers take up 21 pop cap, two of them adding to already sufficient enough force of rifleman and other infantries, and unless you back tech to lieutenant or captain, your first tank will be too late which is a huge problem mainly because how awkward rifleman at nade is.
partly agree on OKW, giving them no mid game tank and resource penalty lead relic to give OKW, vet 5 with crazy bonuses, insane elite squads, super cheap teching with one of the tech building as long ass range area denial until late game, built in AA, KT etc etc - basically units/features that performs out of norm but apparently balanced due to OKW's shortcomings in other department, which i don't think translate too well in game.
i applaud relic for trying something new but it's a mess.
...
On faction variety:
There's a strong argument for not homogenising factions like my writing suggests above. It's a decent argument and is valid. However there are myriad ways to make factions different without forcing some factions not be able to benefit from combined arms. Within a combined arms company in CoH2 you have 4 different elements. Infantry, Machine Guns, Mortars and AT guns. Each of these can be balanced to allow certain factions to excel in certain areas or the like. Perhaps the Soviets could have better infantry, however the Ostheer have better Machine Guns to counteract that.
already ostheer, okw, sov and usf's baseline infantry, HMGs, mortars (or their counter part), AT guns are very different.