Profile of ZombiFrancis

1.Rzhev Winter
I think this map is more appropriate for 4v4s than it is for 2v2s. Snow/blizzard maps make movement so sluggish they can accommodate more players just to keep the battlefield active.
2.Minsk Pocket
It's alright for 2v2s. I dislike the resource distribution, but that's a general rule for all CoH2 maps by design.
3.Crossing in the Woods
This is a good map. I don't have any outward complaints about it, except perhaps it's size can get 2v2s cramped. (Especially with WFA armies and their dynamic retreating/HQs.)
4.Ettelbruck Station
Has the potential to be great, currently not so great. It's more appropriately sized for a 1v1 than 2v2s or 3v3s.
5.Hurtgen Forest
I can never remember which one this is.
6.Road to Kharkov
Very imbalanced map. I've had it vetoed for most of it's existence.
7.Vaux Farmlands
General CoH2 resource/territory complaints, but the map works well.
8.Semoskiy Summer
This map did not translate well to this game. It was an excellent map in vCoH, but the games are too fundamentally different, especially were map design is concerned, for it to retain any of its former glory.
9.Semoskiy Winter
The chief merit of this map was the first map with snow on it without blizzards. Stupid blizzards.

Big fixes should always be the priority.

But to answer the questions:

1. Is there something that you feel is lacking from the COH2 Vanilla army that you usually play?

Yes. The Soviets lack a complete and dynamic army. A strong general purpose infantry unit never materializes without doctrins. Their tiering system lacks strategic depth. The Ostheer, as a result, lack a meaningful dialogue of strategies with their opponents. Currently the Soviets pick their poison and the Ostheer just waits to react accordingly.

2. Is there something WFA armies have that you’d like to see COH2 Vanilla armies gain in the game?

The only thing about the British that I felt was interesting was the Captain's retreat. With the WFA armies both carrying on the British legacy, the only thing I can think of is dynamic retreats.

3. Do you have a specific wish list for your army?

I have only really played the vanilla factions to any extent, but yes.

For the Soviets, a backbone infantry unit, like Guards, out of doctrines and into tier buildings. Likewise for Shock Troops, but as a lategame/t4 infantry unit, to actually provide a level of 'shock; instead of being all too present from 2CPs onward, or nonexistent. Then, T70s and SU-76s need to be timed and/or tiered together. Their roles are greatly diminished in their current placement, but ny wishlist for Soviets consists of a T1>T2 or T3>T4 pattern, with T70s and SU76s in T3.

For the Ostheer, they just need to have StuGs that can come out early and can survive a few tank shells, especially from the front. If StuG3s were core units and StuG4s could absorb a few heavy tank shells from the front, both the vanilla factions would have a much more dynamic army to fight with/against.

4. Is there something you struggle with the most?

Blobs reaching critical mass, end-game call-ins and abilities that literally end gameplay, infantry squad behaviors in taking cover/aiming/facing/moving, general pathing inefficiencies and issues, freak squad wipes from unpredictable and random events, multiplayer delays.

5. Do you have any specific examples you’d like to share? (Something like ‘I have a hard time dealing with ‘X’ thing, I think it would be easier if I had ‘Y’ thing)

I have a hard time justifying myself and allies, or pressuring my opponents into spending fuel on anything other than the most burly/broken tank call ins or katyusha/stuka. I also have a hard time making a meaningful dent in my opponents resource income, which undermines the entire mid-game. It pretty much eliminates it in most cases.

If Soviet T70s and SU-76s came out early and were facing off against StuGs, there would be the makings for a solid mid-game.

Using CPs to delay units from hitting the field is an artificial method that doesn't actually create opportunities for other units to be effective. It just draws out stalling tactics even further.

If people are saving up their fuel for heavies, then they're just going to save fuel for heavies longer. More manpower to be fed to the grinders. The real problem is that fuel really only has one viable use: heavy tank call ins. (Well, depending on doctrine, converting into munitions also.)

The only vehicle with any real shock value (ability to be fielded [if rushed] before a strong feasible counter) is the kubelwagen. And that one is a problem because NO counter, not just a hard one is ever available. Although I guess in a 1v1, depending on how a Soviet player chose to cripple themselves, Ostheer t3 has a chance for fairly decent shock value.

Either way, the timing is inconsistently unpredictable.

See, when I heard about WFA, I thought it was finally an admission of guilt and Relic was releasing effective clones of the American and Wehrmacht armies from vCoH. I figured they gave it a shot with the Eastern Front, but they were playing it safe and trying to recoup the community.

Then I saw lol Nazi Brits, rolled my eyes, and played Path of Exile for a month.

I just want to know how many people who spent money on Company of Heroes (Any of them) played or cared about the single player campaigns? Where did the decision to put so much energy into Single Player missions come from, and under what rationale?

I didn't play the vCoH campaign until CoHO was out and it was a free way to get a bit of xp. I didn't play CoH2's until BadComedian's video convinced me to check it out to see if it really was that way. And ultimately, the campaign made me realize how untouched multiplayer had been since (and throughout) beta.

So how much of a market is Single Player that it deserves so much focus? For that matter, how popular are those AI missions and challenges?