izigame.me

I was looking forward to this game, but I cannot recommend it. My main point of comparison is Company of Heroes 2 (CoH2), as that is my best point of comparison, having around 1000 hours on it.
Starting with the campaign, the Italy and North Africa setting was initially interesting. The Italy campaign's more Total War style was promising and seemed to evolve from the campaigns of the previous games. However, after playing through it, there is a lack of depth and meaningful decisions that can be made, and the commanders in the story come off more as annoying children. At the end of the campaign, increasing your relationship with each of the commanders did not feel very impactful, but ultimately, it is relatively easy to max out your relationship with all of them. After a while, things devolve into one tedious skirmish battle after another, with the only highlights being the more set-piece moments. This led to the Italian campaign failing in one of its goals of improving campaign replayability. The Ardennes Assault campaign from CoH2 accomplished this more effectively and offered better rewards for completing it.
The North Africa campaign was passable, if a bit too short. However, in terms of storytelling or design, it is far from being equal to the campaigns of its predecessors.
For the factions, the game does much of what has come before, with two Allied factions and two German factions. Each faction offers a different playstyle. The options for mobile warfare to fortify positions and call-ins allow most people to find something they like. However, Relic does tend to over-correct in balancing the game, which can leave certain factions feeling unplayable until the next balance patch. The commander options can be fun at times, and the more CoH1 style of options initially seemed like a good idea, but it still does not provide as much variety as CoH2 commanders. This could be addressed with even a few more commanders, but at the time of writing this review, only two DLC commanders have been added.
Moving on to maps and mechanics, this is where I found the most disappointment. Most of the official maps follow the same three-lane structure. This style of map does have a place in the game, but there still needs to be a greater variety of maps for more open, urban, and other types with few choke points and bridges. This could be fixed with future content, but again, at the time of writing, there is not enough variety across all map sizes. Machine guns in buildings and other well-fortified positions can easily be outfought by even basic infantry in cover leaving them comparatively weak. The breaching mechanic was something I was excited to use, but it is available to too few units, and its cost does not justify it compared to the longer-term investment of a flamethrower, which has a questionably long range. The towing of equipment such as flak guns and anti-tank guns is another thing I looked forward to, but it still lacks impact due to how fast units can move without being towed. A flak gun can be pushed into position while under fire from a machine gun, set up, take out the machine gun, and then quickly leave. Tanks can now also be ridden by infantry, which, while fun the first few times, has relatively little impact. These were all interesting ideas but ended up being practically irrelevant due to other parts of how the game is designed. The ability to repair destroyed vehicles is something that was implemented well. There is also the issue of units that can effectively engage infantry and vehicles. These "do everything" units, such as Rangers and Panzerjagers take away much of the consideration and impactful decision-making with unit equipment that existed in both CoH1 and CoH2. Armor is another area that suffers. Having different armor values for the front, sides, and back of a vehicle would add greater depth to positioning, yet good positioning still seems to have been more important in CoH2 due to the relative strength of anti-armor options compared to tanks. The potential for a tank turret to be jammed or to immobilize a tank by destroying its tracks, which did exist in CoH2, is not here.
It may seem unfair to compare this game to CoH2, as CoH2, at this point, is fully developed and has had some significant DLC released for it, while this game is still evolving and could improve with more DLC. I do find the comparison apt for a couple of reasons. First, the main competitors in this game are its predecessors, CoH2 and CoH1. An improvement must exist for and existing player base to move on and to bring in a significant number of new players. This game, compared to CoH2, seems to be one step forward and two steps back. Second, given the current state of Relic and the number of layoffs at the company due to this game's lacking the hoped-for sales numbers, the odds of high quantity and quality DLC seem unlikely, meaning this game is already close to its final state and can be compared to its fully developed predecessors. With Relic's own polls showing the player base would like more commanders and maps, what they have delivered so far are improvements in sound, graphics, unit behavior, and the Italian campaign. The first three would be nice but are unlikely to bring back a significant number of players, and the campaign improvements seem so low on the players' list of priorities that they are negligible at best. To suggest that there will be significant improvements to CoH3 at this point, while welcome, seems to be overly optimistic.
Again, this is a game I thought I would like. Like CoH2, I thought it could be one of my go-to games for the next few years. Now, I find that CoH3 had some interesting ideas that were poorly implemented, with improvements being unlikely. The game is not worth its total price tag. If you are interested, I would recommend not getting it for anything less than 50% off. It should keep you occupied while you wait for a better game to be released.