You underestimate how subjective presentation is. You're saying CoH2 looks good to this day but the complaints people have about CoH3 are extremely similar to what people were saying about CoH2. Bad contrasts, cartoony, ugly UI. People have an extremely strong bias towards what they are used to.
Edit: And you were saying that conparing the technical state of the games comes down to preference. That's what I was referring to mostly. CoH3 has good playability. The game just works. It may not be very good atm but at least it's not dysfunctional like CoH2.
Most people agree that graphics are a direct downgrade from Coh3, presentation/artstyle is subjective yes, but when majority of the players say the game looks poop - it is poop by consumer base.
And please show me where Coh2 had bad contrast, cartoony graphics. UI was okayish, it fit the style of the game but could have been improved (especially the minimap)
And to your other point: Coh2 was never dysfunctional, frustrating to play in the beginning? Yes, it was messy.
Coh3 on the other hand is littered with bugs, unfinished animations, bad UI (even in main menu). It is in a playable state but
Relic does not deserve any praise for "a AAA game that barely works after launch and multiple patches". They provided the players the bare minimum with very small replayability