RNG

The small random events of COH was one of my favorite things about it - as war is an activity which is very heavily influenced by Sods's/murphys law.

In coh2 the "RNG" simply ruins the game - this game has been around long enough that by now I should know the answer to "who is going to win this firefight" "should I retreat now?" ect

But I don't and the top players don't know either - I often see them getting squad wiped due to the ridiculous nature of RNG ( and just how bad retreating works in this game) you can have a full health squad get wiped on retreat, even when retreated perfectly, all because of some crazy crits.

If you think im being an idiot tell me exactly how these match ups work. ( grens without MGs*)


Grens vs. Engineer = who wins and with how many casualties.

Grens vs Cons = as above

Tiger vs IS2

M4 vs P4

Pio squad vs. mortar crew.

Basically the overall outcome might be easy to guess, the way it plays out is completely random.

You expect to know your units performance, what you should do not just sit back and watch completely random events - in game its always different, thats not how a good game works.

In fact that is actually the exact opposite of how a good game works, when I watched pro players in COH its so easy to see they are excellent at the game, they control units with such finess, choose such good tactics and strats and just by watching you can tell how much better they are than you.

In COH2 I can see a world champ play and the game looks hardly different to a normal chump with some skill from automatch.

The worst thing is a lot of these factors are 100% completely out of the players hand. No advanced micro, no advanced knowledge of strategy or the map can eliminate these critical and broken RNG moments

Either get it under control or just get rid of the randomness.

Its implemented so poorly that Id rather have my favourite part of the COH mechanic removed from the game rather then have it included and keep ruining the game.

because of some crazy crits.

Repeat after me: there are no crits* in small arms combat in coh2. There are no crits* in small arms combat in coh2. Small arms crits are one of the things they REMOVED RNG wise.

*Pathfinders and Jaegers kinda have them, but theirs are 100% chance on hit, so doubt you're complaining about that.

Basically the overall outcome might be easy to guess, the way it plays out is completely random.

You expect to know your units performance, what you should do not just sit back and watch completely random events - in game its always different, thats not how a good game works.

So I take it you think Coh1 was also a bad game? Because, you know, it actually had small arms criticals. And an even more convoluted low health vehicle crit system than coh2.

this guy is helpless

Repeat after me: there are no crits* in small arms combat in coh2. There are no crits* in small arms combat in coh2. Small arms crits are one of the things they REMOVED RNG wise.

*Pathfinders and Jaegers kinda have them, but theirs are 100% chance on hit, so doubt you're complaining about that.



So I take it you think Coh1 was also a bad game? Because, you know, it actually had small arms criticals. And an even more convoluted low health vehicle crit system than coh2.

Im glad you read the post.. I said it was one of my favourite parts of COH, the critical system in COH was great - especially on the vehicles.

In infantry small and crazy things very occasional happened and it was excellent, it meant just as in real war unexpected things do happen, but rarely enough that basically you could bank on certain units to win certain fights, you knew when you could maneuver and when you had to run.

Like I said tell me the outcomes of the battles above - you cant. Because no one can, I have often seen engineers kill a gren before they get a casualties themselves. This is in 1 v1 fights and not in green cover.

In COH there is no chance in hell that a builder unit would consistently be able to kill mainline infatry in a stragith 1 v 1 fight - now add in more units, and worse game design and you get the RNG in coh2.

Take grens (4 men) vs Cons (6 men) - now you talk about "assymetrical balance" but in 90% of the cases its better to have more men than doing a bit more damage - thats not balance. Its just bad design.

I play both armies i don't care if one has strong units ect But I do care if things don't make logical sense, or historical sense. IF history has nothing to do with it why choose the ww2 setting and why choose the eastern front. But I digress.

P.S I dont care about the exact term or ddefinition of crits - I mean a full health squad can lose a man in one shot, or sometimes they go down to 1/3 health and lose none, only to lose 3 in the next second. I call that crits you can call it whatever you like.

this guy is helpless

Like I said anwser the question. HOw much health with a p4 have left after a 1 v 1 fight with a sherman?

You have no clue - and neither do I .

You might as well just not even have set units in the game if the outcomes are so irrational and unpredictable

Also you are a troll

Im glad you read the post.. I said it was one of my favourite parts of COH, the critical system in COH was great - especially on the vehicles.

Glad to hear, I absolutely hated it and wish CoH2 had done even more about getting rid of the ridiculous crit system.

Like I said tell me the outcomes of the battles above - you cant. Because no one can, I have often seen engineers kill a gren before they get a casualties themselves. This is in 1 v1 fights and not in green cover.

And I haven't. What I mostly see is when combat engineers are in yellow or green cover and some hero starts rushing in his grens through no or red cover against the engies, the engies will usually win.

In COH there is no chance in hell that a builder unit would consistently be able to kill mainline infatry in a stragith 1 v 1 fight - now add in more units, and worse game design and you get the RNG in coh2.

Sounds like you never played the same game I did, US engineer spam against PE and Wehr Pioneer spam against Brits both were far more dangerous than CoH2 builders (not counting Sturmpios which are "special")

Take grens (4 men) vs Cons (6 men) - now you talk about "assymetrical balance" but in 90% of the cases its better to have more men than doing a bit more damage - thats not balance.

Amazing how wrong you can truly be.

I mean a full health squad can lose a man in one shot

No, they can't. Now a single model can be focused down by the enemy squad, like all 6 conscripts firing on the same infantry model, killing him instantly if 5 out of 6 conscripts hit (fairly rare), but this again was EXACTLY the same in CoH1 except there every shot did have a chance to do more damage through crits.

Glad to hear, I absolutely hated it and wish CoH2 had done even more about getting rid of the ridiculous crit system.



And I haven't. What I mostly see is when combat engineers are in yellow or green cover and some hero starts rushing in his grens through no or red cover against the engies, the engies will usually win.



Sounds like you never played the same game I did, US engineer spam against PE and Wehr Pioneer spam against Brits both were far more dangerous than CoH2 builders (not counting Sturmpios which are "special")



Amazing how wrong you can truly be.



No, they can't. Now a single model can be focused down by the enemy squad, like all 6 conscripts firing on the same infantry model, killing him instantly if 5 out of 6 conscripts hit (fairly rare), but this again was EXACTLY the same in CoH1 except there every shot did have a chance to do more damage through crits.

The crit system was amazing and made the game what it was so I have to disagree.

I had played against pe, and spam tactics could work in some patches but it wasnt a core feature of the game like the issues I am talking about.

As for being wrong about having more men as an advantage - go play as ost without mgs on grens and tell me how wrong I am. And if your anwser is get mgs then - ill come back with saying upgrades should be just that, and upgrade not a necessity in every game just to be able to keep pace, and if you need it everygame just make it a core function and not a per unit upgrade.

I agree with you on the statement of how wrong someone can be too.

Like I said anwser the question. HOw much health with a p4 have left after a 1 v 1 fight with a sherman?

You have no clue - and neither do I .

You might as well just not even have set units in the game if the outcomes are so irrational and unpredictable

Also you are a troll

how annoying...stop posting your bullshit threads like you have any knowledge of coh2.
this game has problems but they really have nothing to do with the things you endlessly and cluelessly complain about.
rng is part of the game and it is good that all matchup outcomes are not set in stone, but competent players perfectly know all the elements that will put them in a better spot to have that outcome tip their site.
cover, distance, penetration, units moving or standing, armor, and many more all are non-rng factors and if you are losing your units it's not only because of rng but because your opponent exploited those factors better than you.
also, rng forces you to pay attention and react, and being aware of potential negative rng outcomes is indeed an important skill (that you probably don't have).

Now go write another endlessly long thread about how the problem of coh2 is that it hasn't got vcoh physics engine.

how annoying...stop posting your bullshit threads like you have any knowledge of coh2.
this game has problems but they really have nothing to do with the things you endlessly and cluelessly complain about.
rng is part of the game and it is good that all matchup outcomes are not set in stone, but competent players perfectly know all the elements that will put them in a better spot to have that outcome tip their site.
cover, distance, penetration, units moving or standing, armor, and many more all are non-rng factors and if you are losing your units it's not only because of rng but because your opponent exploited those factors better than you.
also, rng forces you to pay attention and react, and being aware of potential rng negative outcomes is indeed an important skill (that you probably don't have).

Now go write another endlessly long thread about how the problem of coh2 is that it hasn't got vcoh physics engine.

THats the funny thing about it - people aren't exploiting anything, the common play in any skill level in coh2 is 2 squads firing at each other from few feet away, without seeking cover or moving because the game is made so poorly that the models can barely move and fire at the same time and end up dying in seconds ( small arms are either too lethal or not doing anything )- this is not what happened in the first game.


In my opinion having a game go from the utmost quality to extremely low quality is a cause for concern so I do write posts about the physics engine and other things that ruin the game.

Your post refers to things back in COH , these "elements" you speak about with competent players - go watch a single cast from COH 1 from pro players and they actually use movement, cover, range and armour ( through vetting) to get a one up on their opponent.

Im yet to see a convincing example of this in coh2. I have played the first game for hundreds of hours and put in a lto of time in COH2, im not the best but im not some complete noob that knows nothing about the game.

TO me clicking on mg upgrade to win any fight is not a skill, not is completely spamming nades, or molotovs to get ridiculous random kills even when the enemy moves out of the way. Nades in the first game were a risk, you had to spend a lot of fuel on something that might never pay off, in this game they are no risk as they come without upgraded for soviet, and most players float so much resource that spamming them is no issue, and you get so much muni income that you never feel short changed.


DOnt be mad because you are to dim witted to notice things in game - I see them and they annoy me. The large majority poeople cry about "balance" or micro scenarios that are not the core problem of the game, I like to tackle the big issues.

Now that you got butthurt maybe you learnt a lesson.

I dont troll people and If I feel they aren't contributing things I wont engage them in conversation or join their thread, or try put them down and if you do that to me ill just make fun of you.

cya pal ox

Maybe go back to Coh, if Coh2 feels different and unfair?

I play coh here and there - but Id like the sequel to be better too as I paid money for it. I never said it was unfair - its just badly made.

I play coh here and there - but Id like the sequel to be better too as I paid money for it. I never said it was unfair - its just badly made.

So maybe quit?

So maybe quit?

Though I appreciate your suggestion Id rather stay and see if I can make a difference to a franchise I really liked and paid a lot of money for in the long run.

RNGesus is disappoint

maybe they should add more violence

RNGesus is disappoint

RNGesus wants to stay as he is.

maybe they should add more violence

That is a change Id welcome - its far too cartoony as it stands. But at the end of the day it wouldn't make a big enough impact to improve the game.

You can't please everyone and the enitre game will not change beacuse one person wishes it.

You can't please everyone and the enitre game will not change beacuse one person wishes it.

I totally agree - but everyone has the right ( and thanks to the internet) the ability to be heard and influence people.

In fact as a funny side note, every suggestion of mine that have been implemented into the game via patches has actually improved the game.

Those being adding more variables to tank combat, improved infantry to infantry battles ( suggestions about combat pios for ostheer a long time before OKW came out, and now they have sturm pios which are remarkably the same as I suggested in the ost thread, and improving the visuals especially how arty explosions work.

Now I'm not saying relic listened to me and I improved the game only that the suggestions of mine that actually had been implemented had made the game better.

So in some way I feel partly responsible for improving the game - in fact I had a guy from relic pm me about a thread telling me about upcoming changed ( a while back) with vehicle battles being changed and improved.

I totally agree - but everyone has the right ( and thanks to the internet) the ability to be heard and influence people.

In fact as a funny side note, every suggestion of mine that have been implemented into the game via patches has actually improved the game.

Those being adding more variables to tank combat, improved infantry to infantry battles ( suggestions about combat pios for ostheer a long time before OKW came out, and now they have sturm pios which are remarkably the same as I suggested in the ost thread, and improving the visuals especially how arty explosions work.

Now I'm not saying relic listened to me and I improved the game only that the suggestions of mine that actually had been implemented had made the game better.

So in some way I feel partly responsible for improving the game - in fact I had a guy from relic pm me about a thread telling me about upcoming changed ( a while back) with vehicle battles being changed and improved.

I am happy for you but i feel that a lot of Axis players also changed the USF faction from OP to average, beacuse of their threads that they posted. Since i am reading QQ post from both sides of the coin and look at the patch notes i can observe that last changes were more influnced by the community (the majority of it) then by Relic and his IDEA of the game.