Profile of nee

If call-in units had other options to be changed, like special abilities, it might be better off that said abilities require teching to unlock. Having it work only for cost seems contradictory to the (original) point of call in units, which I should add, already cost more than their closest stock equivalents (at least they should unless it's like M10 which is meant to be cheaper but overall weaker).

I mean we already have this with abilities like Panzerfaust, where if you don't tech up and Volks blob you're playing WAY less efficiently than you should.
IMO the same principle should be applied to call in units; the good step in the right direction is they FINALLY made some changes to some units with bland abilities, now they need to just take it a step further: these abilities require X tech to unlock, so while players can still "skip" tech to access the unit, they still require teching to make the most out of it.

You can even have it where ALL call-in's special abilities require some sort of additional investment (that you'd inevitably make sooner or later) to make the most out of them; this makes the

EDIT to provide some examples by skimming changelog:

-IS-2's Fragmentation Shell ability no longer requires veterancy but instead requires T4; the unit's price isn't altered; the veterancy can instead be something like reduced cooldown to this ability. The purpose is to encourage teching up.
-Command Panther's Coordinated Fire requires T4 set up, as opposed to being available immediately.
-M4C Sherman cannot upgrade pintle gun until T4

UKF having mortar and a more durable trench would probably replace mortar pit without the need to make some fancy salvage ability from scratch.
The trench could just be regular Ostheer one and features higher stats, and greatly bolsters an otherwise uninspired mortar unit once garrisoned.
It also brings in tactical play whereas you have to build the trench by the time your mortars get there, and until then they act like gimped 60mms. HMGs and infantry sections themselves would also benefit from using the trench too.
For balance, trenches need sappers and take a while to build, and sandbags are removed from UKF.

>>First of all : more people will come and play this game with system because they are sure that fool team mate isn't gonna leave and keep playing.
Second: you want to play a great game with nice and cool people or play a Ridiculous game with millions of fool people ?! i personally prefer to play a game with 10 cool persons till playing it with 10 milion idiots.

Repeating your claim isn't proving it.
I want to play a great game and not be punished when I don't want to play with idiots. My desire to play the game does not demand that I keep "idiots" out of it, because being an idiot is not a bannable offense, and I can always avoid them by LEAVING. Leaving therefore isn't always a problem, but also a solution to dealing with fools.

Relic just created a cool game that requires boarding effort which is pretty hard work and why relic shouldn't be able to do the easy part ?!

Ignoring the poor English, it is not a matter of them being unable to; it's a matter of them being unwilling.
If you think they "just created a cool game", then I'm baffled to think you're calling it Company of Heroes 2 given it was released four years ago.

3-Pretty bold assertion without any research done whatsoever. >> Well i should say if this situation continue number of coh2 players will increase. don't you think a cool player will hate the game if he sees his team mates are continuously leaving the game ?! so with this option there wont be more unreasonable leaving therefore no more hating of the game. and more people by hearing it are gonna buy the game.

You shouldn't be saying this since it is still an assertion backed up with zero evidence of any sort.
A "cool" player won't hate the game if teammates are continuously leaving; he'll hate the leavers and still play the game. If that wasn't true then I'm one of the coolest players out there....despite also being a leaver myself.

taking a shower after you got disconnected while you can join back to a competitive match ?
of course you will deserve to get punished and get banned. its obvious and doesn't need that question.
by doing this you are gonna waste your team mates time and possible make them lose that game.

In this scenario I had no intention to waste anyone's time, but I had given up on the game and preferred to do something else. You are frankly confusing any reason to not rejoin a match (on the presumption that such option actually exists, since you know, it has to be designed into the game first, good luck getting THAT to work), with deliberately leaving.

it can easily be done.

Let's see you make this work then.

well its a game and dumbass noob players can be everywhere as they might be in your enemy team. so you gotta deal with it.

And this is a game and you're all worked up on people leaving. Deal with it like literally everyone else?

complex ? i don't think so and i have no idea why its complex for you ?!

Because you ahve to design a system where the game has to somehow decide someone is being a leaver. But I suppose it's not complex for you since you want the brush to be as broad as possible.

a player who chooses to play a competitive match shall stand till end of it
otherwise i don't call him a real competitor and yeah he must play till its end.

If at least over 50% of the competitive player base agrees with this then your idea has some relevance. otherwise it is just your own opinion, and we do not need a system that bans people based merely on someone's opinion.

The obvious contradiction in your sentence (do you think before writing something ?)

Yes I do, think before writing, and I can only presume you don't think when you read.

a play who leaves should get punish and suffered. doesn't he suffers his team mates ?

I don't agree that players should be punished for leaving a match they are no longer committed to investing time in. If you want that commitment, join tournaments and prove yourself as a "tough play".

so best thing is to ban the AFK player by his own team mates.

Which is worse because a player can be banned by the whims of teammates. It also contradicts your statements that leavers should be punished, because said player is neither a leaver (because he never left the match), and the decision to NOT ban them is made possible (because he suffers his teammates and should be banned even if teammates don't want to).

This unfair process needs to be rectified.its un fair when a powerful team of 4 who are in Teamspeak play against 4 random guys who doesn't have a cool team as well as them.

What's not fair is that your system is entirely automated; at least in CS:GO, the way Esxile portrays it, players are banned by the community, not the game. There's a reason why they use the human factor for banning people.

The main drawback of CoH1 doctrines was merely there wasn't a whole lot of them. CoH2 fixed this problem...but then the design was made linear so it was sort of rendered moot.

Kind of like not being able to afford a car, so someone gave you a nice new car for free...but then took away your license so you couldn't drive anything at all.

Whatever we have to say about commanders in general, the Volksturm squad alone is shit because it overlaps far too much with Volksgrenadiers; we'd be lucky if the information exposure causes people to actually differentiate between the two (and most can't).

I mean incendiary grenade and panzerfaust shot? AND and SMG upgrade to make them Sturmpionier clones? You'd just spam this unit all day long and train Rak43s and HQ trucks instead.