COH2 from the perspective of a newcomer to the franchise

TLDR the perspective of a newcomer to the game. You won't see anything you haven't already said, but I thought that it might be interesting to hear the perspective of someone who doesn't have the first game as a point of comparison.

There's a lot of posts out there about the state of COH 2, and many of them seem to be made by people who extensively played the first Company of Heroes and its expansions.

As amazing at it looks from YouTube casts I've seen, I've never played the original game and therefore have nothing to compare this to (except DOW2 which isn't a good direct comparison anyways) and I thought I'd take some time to provide my thoughts about COH2 and see what others (both those who have and haven't played the original) think of my take.

POSITIVES & GENERAL OVERVIEW
Company of Heroes has a lot of really neat features. The game, like Dawn of War 2, is not forgiving of player mistakes: lost infantry or heavy weapons can be picked up and decrewed vehicles can be captured by your opponent, meaning that if you're not careful with your purchases, you can end of effectively giving your opponent free crap. This is a really neat idea and something I haven't seen elsewhere (though I guess C&C generals had a tank that could gain power from the debris of other vehicles? and I'm sure other games out there have similar features though I can't think of them right now).

The hard counter system, while I feel has room for improvement, is something else I really like. I know this is kind of take-it-or-leave-it, but I appreciate that units in this game are investments, and losing a single squad or tank is a big deal (if not necessarily game ending). Other games have similar hard counter systems, but not many out there combine the pacing (slower than twitchy RTSes like StarCraft), mechanics (infantry vaulting obstacles, destructable terrain, weapons and vehicles changing hands) in such a way. Even this soon after launch, balance issues aside, I find the game compelling from a purely mechanical perspective.

I think (optimization issues aside: I don't have many issues on my machine but I don't max out my settings) that ColdTech is actually pretty neat. I was highly skeptical of it before and in beta, but after spending some time playing with it I think that it's overall a good system. Winter maps force you to keep really good track of your infantry (lest they freeze to death in the snow) and can actually introduce a modified ruleset during a match (blizzards) which very few, if any other games do. This forces you to prepare for both weather types and modifies the behaviors of units, changing their importance and how players can best use them. I can see why people would be frustrated with this mechanic, but I like it at its core.

It's probably dumb, but I also really like that maps are divided into sectors, and all of the mechanical interactions that happens there (supply lines, isolated sectors etc). Taking control points on the map feels more meaningful than it does in many other games that use CP systems, simply because you can see what territory you have, and it matters if you sneak behind enemy lines and back-cap their points (since that deprives them of resources from their frontline points).

THE BAD / ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT
I don't feel qualified to talk about balance, though I am glad that the strafe doctrine ability was modified. That was quite nasty in its original state. Mechanically, I do feel that the number of issues and complaints centered around the blizzard mechanic show that there's something there to be concerned about, and I hope that's dealt with soon.

Likewise, many features that support the core game feel incomplete. Games like SC2 (and even incomplete games like End of Nations) have leaderboards, and many competitive titles have more robust replay mechanics. Observer mode would support live tournaments, and optimization would improve the play experience of those trying to enjoy the game.

I do wish that commanders allowed for more decision making, aside from picking which one of 3 you want to use at any given time, and then leveling up as you fight. From what I've seen in vCOH and/or COH Online, the ability to choose options off of a tree is a more active and interesting mechanic than just picking 1 of 3 trees to advance along.

I do think that the current implementation of the commander system DLC is lacking, but I'm glad that Relic is committed to adding more commanders over time. I think that the game is a bit expensive to monetize commanders in the way they've chosen, but feel that allowing players to earn commanders over time, and perhaps permanently reducing the price of the gmae to like $30, would be steps in the right direction. I do, though, think that the addition of commanders over time will be something that I enjoy, and experimenting with commanders (I don't have as much time to play as some of you, and while I respect your opinions on which commanders are and aren't useful, I need to see for myself) is something I can see keeping my trying new things in the game for quite a while.

I don't have as much to say here, but it's mostly because it's all already been said. From the perspective of a semi-casual gamer (someone that is trying to improve and takes the game seriously, but has limited time to commit to learning)

BOTTOM LINE
Bottom line, this game is something I can't get anywhere else. I'm not one (any more) for twitchy StarCraft style RTS games, and there aren't (enough or any, depending on the other game) people playing other similar games to interest me in them for any significant period of time (I played a bit of Blitzkrieg 1 and 2, and loved DOW2). Even though COH2 is rough around the edges, it's still a unique RTS game that has features I don't get in other RTS games.

Sorry if this is too much rehashing of stuff y'all have talked about to death here. I am legitimately attempting to engage the COH2 community as a productive member, and thought it'd be interesting to share the perspective of a newcomer to the franchise.

Thanks for your time.

Whats your primary game mode?

I play mostly 2v2 and 3v3. I have done a little 1v1 but feel that I need a better mechanical understanding of the game in order to be successful in that game mode.

When I first started playing, I really liked 3v3 and 4v4 but I'm increasingly finding them too chaotic to be enjoyable, and somewhat difficult for me to help effect a comeback if my teammate(s) are struggling.

EDIT - I only really enjoy player vs player, in case it's unclear. While I have time commitments and an unable to dedicate dozens of hours a week to improving, the quality of my play is very important to me.