With respect to tactical decision making I believe that coh2 is a bit better than coh1, which is a big reason I prefer it.
Oh jeez. You clearly have zero understanding of what the word "tactical" means.
CoH 2 has: Linear commanders.
CoH 1 has: Two-pronged trees that require decision making which drastically alters the direction of the game.
CoH 2 has: Cheap upgrades that do not affect the overall game.
CoH 1 has: Upgrades that are expensive and therefore require excellent decision making and timing knowledge to use effectively (ex. grenades vs. early MGs, BARs maybe instead of M8 vs. early sniper depending on fuel and map control, veterancy upgrades, etc.). On top of that, the companies/doctrines are much more complex and there is a great interplay between these two features.
CoH 2 has: Units, and that's about it. Units that just have no depth to them.
CoH 1 has: Units that have an incredible depth and synergy between each other, as well as layers of depth according to what companies/doctrines are picked by either player and what upgrades are chosen. This is what made CoH 1 incredibly tactical. CoH 2 will never be able to compare.
There is a lot more to say about why CoH 2 has features which are game-breakingly bad, and you are in denial. Unfortunately, I don't think you are proving anything to anyone, except the fact that you are fanboy that clearly never played CoH 1 to any real extent. As for me, I moved on to SC 2 and DotA 2. CoH 2 is utter shit, and it's not worth talking about until Relic fixes this mistake of a game and starts to completely change it with patches that will bring it closer to the tactical magnificence that was CoH 1.