You'rre not only the 'only guy' i've ever heard say he did'nt like COH, but you should post your reasons so we can all see if your're actually 'crazy'. On the other hand that you dont like it is enough for me to shrug it off as human diversity.
1. The options for each move. I feel there are too many options - and that the ap/cp point mechanics lends itself to analysis paralysis
2. This leads to a slowing down of the pace of the game making it seem more like ASL than LNL.
3. For a game with simple rules it seems like there are exceptions and overrides all over the place.
4. I feel this games worships at the altar of the myth of the German tactical superiority, I think it definitely exagerates the German capabilites while downplaying the Soviet strengths. (I'll be honest that's a complaint I have about many WWII games). In my own opinion (opinion mind you), the Soviets were no where nears as incompotent as people think, it was at the regimental/division size where the inexperience really showed and which caused the most problems for the Soviets.
5. At times it feels characterless to me. To me this feels more like a "combat" game than a WWII game. The Gemans ard better moe for their "points" than for the weapons.
6. I'm a sucker for art and chrome in a game but the art and components seemed to be disjointed and inconsistent.
I think yout thoughts are very right, but perhaps for part of you #4 point when it concerns Soviet Armor. The German Armored tactical ability was very much better than the Soviets up to late in the war. In fact I find that most tactical games does not do German Tanks justice (ASL comes to mind immediately)! They had excellent training, they had usable radios and crew intecoms, superior optics, 3-man turrets, etc... The Russian AFVs were blundering semi-blind colossus compared to them. In most battle situations the Germans got the upper hand and low losses, even if their machines were often "inferior" on paper. The numerous Russian Anti-tanks guns were more of a problem for the Germans IMHO
Andy, I think your point re analysis paralysis is well taken - I can see some players just locking up with this one. Last week at DonCon I played the same scenario twice before the guys next to me got to turn four of their first game. However, I think that's a fair price to pay for the high level of interaction.
I don't agree with your third point, however; I think the game achieves a very high degree of tension with very low rules overhead. I found it easy to absorb and rarely have need to consult the rulebook.
Point four is a matter of taste, but I do find the Germans awfully capable relative to the Sovs. For Barbarossa that makes sense but we'll see how the values adjust as the later-war modules appear.
Re point five, I feel it has plenty of character and enjoy the asymmetry of the two sides. I played a big armor scenario in the CoH final and it was fun to puzzle through the distinct capabilities of the very fast T34s versus the low-activation panzers.
Finally, re your last point, I think the game does an outstanding job of presenting information, but don't find it particularly good-looking. The new Kursk maps are a huge upgrade, and Steve's covers are great, but the counters do nothing for me.
In sum, it's never going to replace ASL as my number one tactical game, but I enjoy it very much and it will continue to see a fair share of table time with our crew.
I like the game. The few times I got to play it, AP was never a problem for us. We had some idea of what we wanted to do, and then "implemented the plan". Made the game go pretty smoothly.
I cannot address the doctrine issue, but my opponent (who knows far more about things like that than I) felt it was pretty darn accurate.
I also do not think the game/series was ever intended as a serious tactical study or replacement for ASL. It is a simple, light, fast playing game that provides something resembling historical results from 'historical' play and does it well. I am not sure it is the best WWII game of 2008, but it is a good game.