CoH2 had virtually no weapon profiles at launch, so what random element are we talking about here? The 20% flamethrower instant kill criticals or the "body armor" where shots deflected on many squads
I get what you mean with inf combat being too consistent, predictable & boring, however I don't see where CoH2 was really better here. For a seasoned player it is pretty easy to predict the outcome of CoH2 infantry engagements in almost every single case as well.
And tanks get crazy RNG wipes 24/7 in CoH3, so there is that
I don't mean at-launch infantry combat, I mean its current state. It's far from perfect, and I have several things I would definitely change (the prevalence of high-accuracy long-ranged squads, and LMGs in general), but overall it's far more dynamic and interesting than Company of Heroes 3 currently is. You can predict the outcome of an infantry engagement, sure - the whole point of the game is predicated on being able to make tactical decisions with the information available to you. Do I retreat to preserve my manpower and deny the enemy veterancy? Do I stay and try to bleed a few models from the squad? RNG injects a bit of fuel into these decisions, because overall the stakes tend to be fairly low (losing an early engagement will not lose you the whole match, unlike in Company of Heroes 1) and for a good player the worst that will happen is a bit of manpower bleed.
Well maybe maybe not. I see where you're coming from; In CoH 2, you might have to gamble a bit to get that squad wipe or finish off that tank. Should I stay or should I pull back? I might be able to bounce that shot, amd if I do I could get the kill, but if not I lose this tank and they keep theirs. Etc. These choices are a bit of gambling mixed in with the skill.
But games don't HAVE to have that RNG element to them. Chess, for example, doesn't have you roll dice to determine whether you capture a piece or not, you simply capture it. Maybe with unit interactions being more "clinical and sterile", it will be easier to balance. Just a thought.
I was going to admit that the "clinical and sterile" nature of chess has created a "meta" where most people play the same openings, but then I remembered that even in top level play, chess players do experiment with openings not considered the best. It's not like RNG somehow cured CoH 2 of this phenomena.
There's always going to be a metagame - literally any competitive activity in history has developed a metagame as professionals attempt to predict and one-up one another. The analogy with chess is somewhat flawed because I find that chess is more applicable to a game like StarCraft than Company of Heroes. Chess and StarCraft are both "macro-level" strategies - the "tactical" level, i.e., what happens when one piece encounters another, or what happens when a StarCraft unit comes against its counter, is predictable. The "strategic" layer, how the player distributes the resources available to them and reacts to the opponent's decisions, is where the majority of these games are played.
Company of Heroes is a "micro-level" strategy game first and foremost, and this is why I enjoy it over most other RTS games. Resources distribution and build order are not as important as having your units in the right place at the right time, and knowing how to use them and what situations they're effective in. Play and counterplay are decided in the moment-to-moment use of units, not in the economic decisions that are largely relegated as secondary. The RNG-reliant combat system is largely what enables this. There will always be a "meta" - that is unavoidable. The question is how restrictive or permissive it is to alternative strategies. In its current state, Company of Heroes 2 allows for a wide variety of units that can actually be a part of a winning strategy - Company of Heroes 3 has factions that are bloated with units that never see the light of day.