To all those that say I shouldn't expect to learn something from a video called "Clarion Call": you don't call something a sequel to something else if you're not going to follow the same pattern as the previous iterations. You just don't. The previous two CCs were chock full of good fights, educational information, and specific tactics. If CC3 wasn't going to deliver on that structure, then RnK should have called it something else. Simple as that. When you go to watch Scream 4, you expect it to bear more than a passing resemblance to Screams 1, 2, and 3.To that I would add that RnK has put out a non-Clarion Call video lately. It's called Ironclad. It has 6000 views on YouTube. CC3 has nearly 80,000. A cynical man(1) might be tempted to say that CC3 got that name because the producer wanted to make sure that people would go out and watch it.
Let's use a very basic, easy to understand example: CC1 and CC2 gave specific tactics surrounding triage carriers and spider-tank carriers, respectively. CC3 could have easily explained the tactics regarding all-neut Bhaalgorns. It would have both fit the previous CCs and would have fit within CC3 just fine. Why wasn't this info included? What would have been more useful? All the filler crap that was there? Or specific combat tactics that you could put to work in your own corps?
That's why this objection is not a "straw man." The very definition of sequel is "a work that is complete in and of itself, but continues the narrative of a preceeding work." Clarion Call 3 does not qualify.