Proper video effort, demands proper response. Note that i had been writing on and off on the post so some things might not be coherent or follow the same line of thought.
-Campaign:
Talking about it, is like beating a dead horse at this point.
The meta score comes from a boicot from the Russian market. Whenever you have those kinds of heavy polars results, it's more than likely some kind of drama is behind it.
Vanilla campaign is unispiring (unfortunately the norm not the exception for RTS) and feels more like old propaganda movies even if the message behind it is different.
-Theater of War:
Untapped potential. MAYBE. It's unfortunate to have the limitations we have in the modding tools. If you check the success of the late stage life of SC2, it has been the CooP modes with "Commanders" which have kept the franchise relevant, at least in the greedy eyes of Acti-Blizz. More on this later.
-THQ/Relic/Sega
You can probably see how they intended the game to be, by how the game was 2 years into release. It's not fair to compare RTS from before 2010, cause the market suffer a completely different shift. Just check each RTS (not strategy, cause those in the Total War or turn based are different beasts) games from that point onward and how there are less iconic/success/offer atm.
Bleeding talent has been an issue as well. You can see the results on a giant like Blizzard. It's both, talented people and those who have a real vision IN CHARGE which lead to great titles.
I could be wrong on this, but the people who design the initial factions of VCOH, USF and WM, were no longer part of Relic for CoH2, or at least, the ones who were in charge of it were the ones who designed PE and Brits.
Multiplayer:
The way you describe SU/WM seems to be root on how the game launched and not how the faction evolved. WM is no longer "easier" to get into outside of 1v1 as it used to be, none SU are considered a Zerg faction. While there are certain iconic things such as 6 man squads or cheaper medium tanks.
Penals INITIAL design was not even what you described. They were 360mp Panzergrenadier equivalent unit with each SVT having the performance of G43. They were basically 6 man grens with semi autos (with semi autos been good at all ranges but better mid to close range). The satchel been the only suicide tool, as it would wipe any squad which was in heavy snow (you couldn't retreat in time), including the penals. The flamer was anecdotally, the only flamer in the game which wouldn't randomly explode.
Yes, on one hand you have the bulletins description with skewed historic facts of bunch of random dudes sent to clear minefields. On the other hand they were code to be officers or soldiers with experienced sent high risk missions. And while i never liked the PTRS upgrade (i did prefer the sticky satchel + 45mm AT gun) it's not like it out of the case for them to have some sort of AT.
https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/3igu17/on_the_concept_of_soviet_barrier_troops_as/
Reference 34
USF/UKF: you have to take into account with which timeframe the factions were designed and that then certain elements are added mostly through commanders for flavour ("no heavy tank faction"...receives pseudo heavy Pershing).
All 3 factions had been a mess on release (and UKF is still a mess nowadays) because the whole concept of each faction was to remove key elements of gameplay and provide them with OP ones to compensate. This destroyed teamgames for years with the release of OKW and UKF later on. USF would proceed to destroy 1v1 instead.
-Blizzard:
Please correct the fact that you can no longer play with Blizzard "offline" or in custom games. It's called Cold tech and you can enable or disable it. Not all maps which are snowy had it, but i just launched Oka River and all those "decent in theory, horrible implemented" features are still present. I would had opt for so many alternatives before removing it completely, but at the end of the days, with the limited crew they had, i prefer not to play on blizzard maps and had other features been worked on.
-Gameplay:
Disagree. There are plenty of different opinions regarding DoW 1 vs DoW 2. Making the game more like Steel Division or Men of War would had been the complete death of the franchise.
There is place for evolution on less iconic titles. You can add features or improve certain mechanics like True vision.
It's a matter of taking a look at which RTS franchises are still alive nowadays and what they had done or haven't.
Check the evolution from C&C, on either Tiberium Wars, Red Alert or Generals. See what a travesty C&C4 was. Even old WestWood developers were unable to draw from nostalgia with their latest title Greygoo.
.
Blizzard and their transition between SC:BW and SC2 and each expansion. Talking bout blizz, they also made a revolution and completely new game (WC2 were closer to first C&C) which would end up "killing" the genre couple of years later with the release of DOTA. (Talking about WC3)
Check the evolution of AoE. Take AoE II/Conquerors/Remaster/DE and how it compares to Mythology or AoE III
Developer: Age of Empires 3 Was a “Huge Mistake”
Bruce Shelley, founder of series creator Ensemble Studios, explained that the developer had tried too hard to reinvent the series and broken the game in the process.
"With Age of Empires 3 we tried all of these new ideas," he said. "I think it was a huge mistake."
"We wanted to create something that was 30 per cent the same, 30 per cent borrowed and 30 per cent innovative. I think we tried to do too much."
As it seems you want to talk about multiplayer later, i would just mention this.
INITIAL RELEASE of CoH2 had this design in mind: RNG for the sake of RNG and have as many annoying tools as possible to make your opponent uninstall instead of a playing a STRATEGY game. Remember, "every crashing plane and ramming tank, tells a story".
Relic Entertainment
보드카 중대 
