Profile of Hannibal

Assuming you hold 2vps and opponent holds 1 with no one contesting anything, that's 25 minutes until win.
Not that far off from ~30 mins in CoH2.

It really only matters in most passive games and 3-0 stomps.

Assuming a 1 VP advantage, all games are a good 8 min shorter or, unsurprisingly, 25%.

There's no reason why the tick rate should matter only in stomps. It matters in all games, and all games will (from what we could see in the test) be shorter by roughly a quarter compared to CoH2

The way I see how the faction are design if you decrease the tick rate you'll need to nerf quite heavily late game units of 3 factions.

I did not play enough to be able to judge if that is true, but if it is, it would be almost the same mistake as in CoH2 back when Axis were about holding out until they get their heavies. This one faction would be screwed then

I never felt the VP ticking too fast, and that I didn't get to use my late game units. I think there are choices to be made, or you want a strong early game or skipping some for stronger stock units and there is a variety of choice to avoid pumping fuel. Same goes for upgrades, I don't think the game is made for you to research all of them but some according to your strategy.

One of my last game I was able to call 2 Churchill one after the other was destroyed and 2 build 2 stock heavy tank (can't remember the name) on a 1vs1 + different other medium tanks on the mean time. The game was pretty even and interesting, I learned a lot playing it.

I also don't think that you're supposed to get all upgrades. I am not even sure you're supposed to get all tech buildings. Still, the tick rate means that stalling is basically impossible and that making one larger mistake that costs you VP control for very few minutes will almost instantly cost you the game.
Build variety might be higher, but I fear that overall strategy variety will be lower.

I personally don't think that "early rush" strategies are good for a game in the style of CoH, and faster tick rates will make those much easier. They don't fit the play style and epic presentation.

Also, I am afraid that making one mistake that forces you off the map will be unrecoverable from.

I am highly skeptical about the faster tick rate in CoH3.

As a reminder: CoH2 had a tick evaluation every 4 seconds, meaning every 4 seconds one side loses victory point from their counter according to the difference in held VPs. CoH3 lowered this to 3 seconds. If the mechanics in CoH3 lead to at least a roughly similar pace, games will be finished 25% quicker. A normal and balanced CoH2 game usually lasts 30-40 min. For CoH3, these games would be reduced to 22,5 and 30 min, respectively. Unless the game is slowed down considerably or VPs are more frequently "contested" and neutral, games will be shorter.

This is likely part of the "more casual" approach to CoH3. Shorter games means you'll be able to fit one match in if you don't have that much time, or it is not as big of a commitment for the evening if you want to play another game. Additionally, it becomes easier to calculate how much time you have left before you lose the match.

However, given that CoH3 feels more tactical and seems to have a bit slower approach to gameplay than CoH2, I don't see how those two designs benefit from each other. Higher tech tiers might not really be played if the game ends in 20 minutes. It also compresses other mechanics: Buying battlegroup abilities did not feel like a real investment, because currently Relic wants you to unlock everything within one game so you need to gain them very quickly as well. Obviously I was not playing efficiently, but I often had command points "left over". More competitive players will train this more quickly, but especially considering that the game aims at a casual audience too, having those points left over allows you to buy "whatever" and won't be a strategic decision where you fight until you get enough points to unlock that one unit you want.
There will be less back and forth. There are only so many times a unit can retreat, run to the front and fight until the time is over. Especially when they come late into the game. This in turn influences balance: If you buy a unit at the 20minute mark and the game is expected to last only 25 min, the unit has only 5 min to pay itself off. That's basically drive to the front-> get damaged -> repair -> front one more time -> game over. Therefore, it needs to be very strong compared to an early unit. If you'd expect the game to last 35 min instead, it suddenly has 15 minutes for payback, which not only allows more back and forth as described above but also the unit to be weaker compared to early game units.


On the neutral side I'd note matchmaking: Shorter games will mean that players will be more often available for the matchmaker. You'll spend more time queued up and less playing, but have better games, too.


To sum it up:
I am concerned that the - probable - faster pace will actually make the game worse because its mechanics won't be able to develop.

OP has very good points.

CoH3's gameplay looks good. You can see that they aim for a lot of variety in builds, teching, units and many more. It's great. Many things will cause issues down the line and be redesigned/removed, but overall it is a big step forward from CoH2 even after years of patches.

Assuming that there will be no major overhaul until release, I'll rate the game "okay", a bit worse than CoH2. I won't play at launch, but probably 6-12 months down the line, once the major things got fixed. I personally don't have many reasons to doubt that CoH3 will be the better game in the mid and long term.

I'm wondering what people will say about the restoration of enemy tanks. People whined about how unfairly abandoned tanks were when you broke through to the enemy and were abandoned there. Now imagine a common situation in CoH when a team makes a big tank attack and dies in the rear. And all these tanks will then return to pump you up. Remember kids - abandoned tanks are RNG and bad. And restored tanks are good.

Comparing CoH2 abandons with CoH3 restoration does not make much sense.
Players complained because it was truly random, and also so rare that you the cost calculation would always be on the side of diving and potentially sacrificing that vehicle. So you'd dive, and then get that 5 % chance of an abandon that might turn around the whole game since the enemy is - with an investment of 1-2 min repair time - suddenly ahead of you despite you doing the correct calculation of diving. In those 5% of cases, CoH2 is literally punishing you for doing the correct thing.
As far as I can see, all (?) vehicles in CoH3 will be recoverable initially. This way, you can include it into your estimation of a positive outcome from the very start, and the game does not screw you over. If it was not worth it, it was your mistake.

Does the recovery make for good gameplay? I personally doubt it, since those dives that snipe 2-3 Katys have been hilarious in CoH2 and sometimes also the only way to reduce the artillery burden in large modes. We have to see how the meta develops in CoH3. It overall does not feel like those dives are really worth it though with all vehicles being much beefier.