Lets fix RNG

A lot of these responses are acting like the OP said RNG should be removed from the game. Only morons ever suggest that idea. The title is "Lets fix RNG". At least as far as I get a feel from playing is, there is a lot more random outcomes of minor engagements that should just go one way. I think that is the point the OP was trying to make. Some engagements that even should be a roflstomp end up going the other way, and way more often than vCOH. This is what makes it seem more like making units, throwing them at other units, and watching while flipping a coin sometimes. Maybe my luck is just worse and this happens more to me, but meh. Cuz dat sniper video was mine, tell me that's happened to you. It's a perfect example of this as well.

This may also be from more of a lack of factors that contribute to the outcome of engagements. Like the cover system being less of a factor meaning positioning is less important, and the absence of units like bikes/jeeps/kettens pushing and other factors that the player can control to change the outcome of an engagement from one that might be a straight up loss. It was way more fun to watch a game in vCoh and have these tools at the players disposal to change the outcome of an engagement. These were required micro and skill. In COH2 it seems more like you either run in a building or gamble on your riflenade, nades, or moli's to turn an engagement, or pray on the rng coinflip. The lower raw infantry damage doesn't help here either. It may not really even need to be rng that needs to be addressed so much as these other factors taken a look at. Then rng would play less of a role on its own.

Random squad wipes from single mortar rounds and normal soviet mines also add to this frustration, however that is another issue slightly different.

A lot of these responses are acting like the OP said RNG should be removed from the game. Only morons ever suggest that idea. The title is "Lets fix RNG". At least as far as I get a feel from playing is, there is a lot more random outcomes of minor engagements that should just go one way. I think that is the point the OP was trying to make. Some engagements that even should be a roflstomp end up going the other way, and way more often than vCOH. This is what makes it seem more like making units, throwing them at other units, and watching while flipping a coin sometimes. Maybe my luck is just worse and this happens more to me, but meh. Cuz dat sniper video was mine, tell me that's happened to you. It's a perfect example of this as well.

This may also be from more of a lack of factors that contribute to the outcome of engagements. Like the cover system being less of a factor meaning positioning is less important, and the absence of units like bikes/jeeps/kettens pushing and other factors that the player can control to change the outcome of an engagement from one that might be a straight up loss. It was way more fun to watch a game in vCoh and have these tools at the players disposal to change the outcome of an engagement. These were required micro and skill. In COH2 it seems more like you either run in a building or gamble on your riflenade, nades, or moli's to turn an engagement, or pray on the rng coinflip. The lower raw infantry damage doesn't help here either. It may not really even need to be rng that needs to be addressed so much as these other factors taken a look at. Then rng would play less of a role on its own.

Random squad wipes from single mortar rounds and normal soviet mines also add to this frustration, however that is another issue slightly different.

The problems you mention can be dealt with by toning down the chances/risks of a certain situation to happen. For example reducing the Su-85s probability to hit infantry, or the recent flamer crit decrease. All of this can be achieved by "simply" changing numbers in the equation, in other words by balancing the game.
In that specific scenario in that sniper video it should be more like, how many men do you lose before you kill the sniper instead of losing the whole squad to him.


I agree that factors such as positioning, use of cover etc. need to have a bigger influence on the outcome of engagements.

How long has it been since you've played if I may ask?

Quite a while, I always make a point of trying out the patches and checking the changes. I just lost itnerest over the game gradually. Flanks are not satisfying and the core has not been addressed enough (for whatever reason). RNG though, is one thing they shouldn't change.

Im ok with RNG.

What can however be done, is reduce the magnitude of RNG rolls to be more fringe effects than they currently are. Its not hard, just requires a simple reduction in a few numbers.

Many people completely, and hilariously, misuse the term to refer to Mine placement for example lol. "Its RNG if my opponent runs over my Mine or not!" HAHAHAHA

Some things that are superificially RNG, such as the overall result of small arms combat, arent as simple as they seem. Infact they are a complex sequence of rolls derivedfeom moving accuracy, the weapons accuracy at different ranges, cover modifiers, armor, some penetration effects, rate of fire (related to reload and aim time and any number of other stats), damage per hit, how many weapons the unit has in relation to how many models the target has, the spread of the targets and how many weapons you bring to bear on one or more, etc etc.

First thing is to stop misusing the term by applying it to things which are not, infact, RNG at all, but rather the result of complex equations with many variables.