RNG has too much of an impact on games

The thing with cons and grens seems a little to me as i described the situation about the KV-8: it might look like instant crits but it actually isn't.

A regular Conscript/Grenadier only takes 5 penetrated hits from a regular Kar98K/Nosin Nagant to get killed. thats not much when 4 or 6 guns are firing at a target.
So if you are lucky and your first 5 hits in an engagement are rolled penetrated hits at the same entity it can be downed right away and it might look like something like an " instant critical". But that's not the case.

Tbh the chances for this to happen are very low, but it can happen and so it does happen.

But the RNG specially in small arms combat is what i much like about CoH. This also means CoH2. No engagement plays out like another. Even the pretty perfectly balanced encouter of a gren vs a cons squad can swing in your favor and the next time in favor for your opponent. But I know that and so i am trying to get any tactical advantage possible to swing the outcome into my favor. If i wouldn't want it that way, i would play starcraft.

True, the combat feels different from CoH1, but only to a certain and small degree. In fact the whole weapon system works quit similar to CoH1 from what I have seen. I agree and also feel that small arms could be a little more leathal in close combat (higher accuracy), mainly the standard rifles. But that's about it for this part. And thats more a balance thing than an RNG problem.

Ah and please as a personal note, stop always calling for more damage if something underperforms in your eyes, when more damage doesn't do the whole job and in many many cases wouldn't mean a buff at all. accuracy and firing rate (and scatter for ballistic weapons) are much more key then damage alone.

Another example I read here is about the PAK and ZIS-3 and that they miss to often. That's totally true. But calling it on the magic bad RNG rolling for accuracy is the wrong approach. AT guns have i believe 50% chance to hit by accuracy vs a standard size (20) tank. This means a hit whatever the vehicle is driving, flying or digging into the ground. The other 50% are fired by scatter and that's the more important part. At max range the actual scatter values are not viable for a meant hard counter. they should match the SU85s scatter values which are the reason this beast basicly never misses at the same range.
And again that's a balance thing not a broken RNG. And in COH1 it works the exact same way.

Actually this games does alot much better than coh1 in this department and looks much more matured and professional to me. Things like the normalizetion of health and damage or the introduction of penetration and armor are very key improvements to make the game much straighter and its data control- and scalable, specially for the future with more weapons and units to come (hopefully).

Do you all remember the Opposing Fronts release?
CoH1 was broken at that point and a major reason for that was cause to whole data model was not as is looks like in CoH2 today.

regards
ace

No, you misinterpreted him. Small arms don't crit when the target model is at > 50% hp. They DO crit at <= 50% hp.

No.

There is NO CRITS in small arms fire, except the final hit that penetrates that causes sufficient dmg to reduce the model to 0hp, which automatically rolls a crit. It is counter-intuitive and weird, but being reduced to 0hp is NOT what kills the model. There is a special internal secondary Crit effect added to the final hitting and penetrating shot that has enough dmg to reduce the model to 0hp, that "actually" kills it.

First it rolls whether a shot hits or not (accuracy / range x cover), then it rolls whether that hit penetrates armor or not. If there is a penetrating hit, the model takes dmg according to that weapons stats. If it doesnt penetrate armor, it does nothing.

There are NO CRITS in small arms fire vs infantry!

TLDR: RNG affects infantry combat only via accuracy (- range, cover, movement of firing unit etc) and armor (which mitigates a hit entirely, not a % of damage). There is NO RNG CRIT. Sometimes multiple shots hit and penetrate a single model which "looks" like a crit. This is primarily dictated by model positioning, followed by the above, but again, NO RNG CRIT!

If there is a discrepancy in infantry combat outcomes (such as some people claim in Penals vs Grens), its not a result of these factors, but something else that nobody seems to be able to explain.

edit: in case you didn't understand what i was trying to say with this is...
the good thing about science is it's true whether you believe in it or not.

Just wondering if Relic is considering lessoning the RNG in this otherwise great game. Way too many times have I left a game feeling <strongly> that I either won, or lost, due to some extra-bad luck. After putting in a hard-fought hour-long game, I don't want to win or loose due to a few extra-lucky shots.

I have played ~500 games of StarCraft over the past 15 years. I never once left a game feeling this way. It was ALWAYS the better played game that won. I would say ~20% of my games of COH2 ends up in 'rage' due to an entire squad going down with one grenade, or a my T34 missing several shots in a row while the opponent's P4 wipes my T34 out, ...at a critical point in the game. And somehow, it really seems to come in sets of bad luck. Its not just one event typically. Realistic? Maybe, I don't really know. Fun, no, not nearly as much as the more deterministic combat of a game like SC. At least not from a competitive POV.

Relic - pls consider reducing the RNG effects. Seems quite a number of other folks feel similarly. Who knows, maybe such a move could bring more folks to COE2. Because otherwise, it is really a great game.

Talk about necro.

Talk about necro.

When you see a Nullist post, you know this is vanilla coh2.org