The consensus for now sounds like that this game is very good but not great enough to revolutionize the RTS genre like its predecessor did. Still, people have considered it a worthy sequel to the original. Here are some quotes and scores from other websites:
Like the Red Army it depicts, it wages its war by throwing everything forward at once, and like that Red Army, too many casualties were left to die along the way. It’s sometimes clumsy, a game that can’t maintain all its systems, with too many disparate moving parts to feel consistently coherent. But the final result, despite the small losses along the way, is a winner.
AusGamers has given the game its highest praise saying:
These gripes really do pale in comparison to the overall achievement of a sequel that is absolutely well worth the wait. Even now, I can’t wait to finish this review and sink some more hours into the multiplayer which, coming from an avid admirer of the original games, is testament to how well Relic Entertainment has made a game for the fans, but also presented a whole lot more.
Attempting to explore the Eastern Front thematically proves misjudged, while persistent unit stupidity is wearing thin after seven years and four games. Counteracting that are the core mechanics, which are as enjoyable as ever, and there are smart new missions to test series veterans.
Nevermind about what I said about Edge, Quarter to Three was the most critical of CoH 2, but looking at other reviews of games, Tom Chick seems like the Armond White of videogame journalists:
Company of Heroes 2 might be the steepest tumble from game design genius to crassly missing the point that I’ve ever seen.
There are other review scores found on Metacritic, where CoH 2 currently has an 82 out of 100 (31 reviews up now):