Improving the abandon mechanic

For me, yes, CoH 2 of 2014 with a bunch of new mechanics, with more unique fractions and problems much more fun than CoH2 of sample 2019, people call it a balance, I call it castration. It was possible to keep the mechanics and balance the game, but it is always easier to go the easy way - to remove the thing that would facilitate work.

I disagree, as the old saying goes, different doesn't mean useful. Faction differences are fine to an extent, but when the entire faction is a gimmick with half a toolbox and little room for new strategies, it's not only a pain to balance, but a pain to play with and a pain to play against. I'm using the original OKW as my example here, they were meant to take a quarter of the map and use infantry based anti-infantry and anti-tank to hold off until they could scrape together enough for a Jagdpanzer or Panther, then center their army around this as they try to gain more of the map. To keep the few vehicles they had, they were given tankier vehicles than average and excessively good repair. This could easily snowball and dealing with an OKW that became too strong was very frusterating. On the contrary if the OKW lost their vehicle then you have effectively crushed the keystone of their army, if they cannot get a new one fast, it's over. Alternatively destroying one of their trucks sets them back even more and they may as well quit.

Over time the OKW was heavily reworked, they gained a Machine Gun, their Infantry gained rifles (also making them realistic), they gained a Medium Tank, and they lost a bunch of gimmicks that didn't quite work. So on the contrary I applaud Relic for realizing the design was untenable and steadily reworking them as a more proven design instead of doubling down and trying to tape up the cracks a structure that is sat upon an unstable foundation.

I disagree, as the old saying goes, different doesn't mean useful. Faction differences are fine to an extent, but when the entire faction is a gimmick with half a toolbox and little room for new strategies, it's not only a pain to balance, but a pain to play with and a pain to play against. I'm using the original OKW as my example here, they were meant to take a quarter of the map and use infantry based anti-infantry and anti-tank to hold off until they could scrape together enough for a Jagdpanzer or Panther, then center their army around this as they try to gain more of the map. To keep the few vehicles they had, they were given tankier vehicles than average and excessively good repair. This could easily snowball and dealing with an OKW that became too strong was very frusterating. On the contrary if the OKW lost their vehicle then you have effectively crushed the keystone of their army, if they cannot get a new one fast, it's over. Alternatively destroying one of their trucks sets them back even more and they may as well quit.

Over time the OKW was heavily reworked, they gained a Machine Gun, their Infantry gained rifles (also making them realistic), they gained a Medium Tank, and they lost a bunch of gimmicks that didn't quite work. So on the contrary I applaud Relic for realizing the design was untenable and steadily reworking them as a more proven design instead of doubling down and trying to tape up the cracks a structure that is sat upon an unstable foundation.

This is completely your right, but the OKW could be balanced around the original concept - it is difficult, it requires skill and talent. Therefore, developers usually follow a simple path: mirror cloning, concept cuts. I am a supporter of the first approach.

Reading comprehension is very hard, so I'll hand you a helping hand and help you understand:

Show Spoiler

I'm well aware of what he meant, try reading my whole post next time:

Doubling your losses because the computer decided it was time makes no sense in a strategy game

"Reading comprehension is very hard..."