Is COH2 played competitively?

What about two players with equal skill then? One goes down because of bad luck? Maybe that is acceptable to you, but I don't think that is right.

Again, I think most people would turn off RNG if it was possible. Maybe some streamers who makes money out of the game wants RNG in it.

IF you posted this when the game was released, there would be merit in discussing the effect of HEAVY RNG but those had been mitigated or removed through the course of the game.

I think most people will agree that the current amount of RNG is fine.
By the example you have given about poker, you have the mentality that the game is a single RNG event but you fail to account that this game is a sum of enormous flipcoins on which each player has the ability to turn it in their favour, retreat out of it and decide when and where they want to "throw" their dice.

I'll give you a question. If you flip a coin 10 times, do you think that it's going to go 5 tails and 5 head ? It's more than likely it will be a 6/4 7/3 situation. But if we extend it to 1000, it's probably gonna be closer to a 50% with say a ±5% difference. What about weighting the coin so one sides is more likely to win ? What about not taking that flip coin if it's 50/50 or you have worst chances?

That's CoH for you. You min-max your opportunities. Player at equal HIGH skill, know when to take trades. When to throw the DICE. There's enough instances on the game, on which the one who played better comes ahead.
You are focusing only on the final result. Say a sniper is on retreat and you have your own sniper to kill it. You have say a roughly 50% chance to snipe it. If you miss or hit, you would say that's luck. BUT what about forcing the sniper to retreat in the first place ?

If most people would want to turn RNG off, they would be playing other games. RNG is part of the soul of CoH as a franchise.

PD: most popular games also have different levels of RNG as well.

-What are crits on games such as DOTA or WC3 ?
-What's map generation on Age of empires 2 ? What's accuracy for ranged units prior to technology upgrades?
-What's cone of fire, recoil/spread on FPS ?
-What's that thing called Hearthstone ?
-PUBG/Fortnite with random loot ?
-I'm sure sports games have different degrees of RNG. Say FIFA when 2 players are disputing the ball.

By the example you have given about poker, you have the mentality that the game is a single RNG event but you fail to account that this game is a sum of enormous flipcoins on which each player has the ability to turn it in their favour, retreat out of it and decide when and where they want to "throw" their dice.

I give this example because if someone just walks away after the first game, skill has no effect anymore.

I'll give you a question. If you flip a coin 10 times, do you think that it's going to go 5 tails and 5 head ? It's more than likely it will be a 6/4 7/3 situation. But if we extend it to 1000, it's probably gonna be closer to a 50% with say a ±5% difference. What about weighting the coin so one sides is more likely to win ? What about not taking that flip coin if it's 50/50 or you have worst chances?

Why a RTS game have to be about flipping coins? There is no need for it in a strategy game, there are many other factors which can decide the game. You are talking about only 1000 tries, Once I have tested four times with 10 million tries each. While three of the tests were very close, one test was quite a bit varied than the other three.

That's CoH for you. You min-max your opportunities. Player at equal HIGH skill, know when to take trades. When to throw the DICE. There's enough instances on the game, on which the one who played better comes ahead.
You are focusing only on the final result. Say a sniper is on retreat and you have your own sniper to kill it. You have say a roughly 50% chance to snipe it. If you miss or hit, you would say that's luck. BUT what about forcing the sniper to retreat in the first place ?

There are times when AT shell bounces off 3-4 times in a row while opponent hits every time. With players having equal level of skill, sometimes this becomes the deciding factor. It should not be like this. How about a mortar wiping out a Grenadier squad with one hit, while your mortar do absolutely no damage to the enemy with 5-6 hits?

If most people would want to turn RNG off, they would be playing other games. RNG is part of the soul of CoH as a franchise.

How do you know Coh will not be better without RNG? Did you try it? While in doubt just give options to turn it off. Those who want it can play with it, those who don't want can switch it off. And of course like you said there are other games without RNG, which means RNG is not a must for games.

PD: most popular games also have different levels of RNG as well.

-What are crits on games such as DOTA or WC3 ?
-What's map generation on Age of empires 2 ? What's accuracy for ranged units prior to technology upgrades?
-What's cone of fire, recoil/spread on FPS ?
-What's that thing called Hearthstone ?
-PUBG/Fortnite with random loot ?
-I'm sure sports games have different degrees of RNG. Say FIFA when 2 players are disputing the ball.

- I have not played DOTA or WC3, so I don't have much idea about them.
- Map is not equal for Coh2 too. I wish maps were symmetric as well. AoE generated maps are far more fair than some of the Coh2 handmade maps.
- I think they should not be considered, it is too much for a single player game. For example, in Coh2 nobody has to worry about ammo stock. MG fires forever without supply, that is perfectly fine. If you consider each and everything then you will be playing as one member of squad or one crew member of a tank.
- Never heard of Hearthstone.
- PUBG is more like hide and seek game, rather than a skill game.
- I am sure there are many sports games without RNG, for example Tennis, Basketball etc.

How do you know Coh will not be better without RNG? Did you try it?

You could easily mod it in, setting all accuracy and penetration values absurdly high so in practice they never miss or fail to penetrate. You'd essentially remove accuracy and armour.

It would make for a very strange game, but you could do it.

There are times when AT shell bounces off 3-4 times in a row while opponent hits every time. With players having equal level of skill, sometimes this becomes the deciding factor. It should not be like this.

You've got this mentality that a tank battle is decided by a single roll. It's not: it takes several shots to take down a tank in CoH and you can react after each. If a fight goes against you retreat.

I give this example because if someone just walks away after the first game, skill has no effect anymore.

And that's not how any game is played. There's a reason COMPETITIVELY poker, each player has a certain pool of chips, so you can outplay people on the long run.

Why a RTS game have to be about flipping coins?

Because that's the essence and core of the franchise, which differentiates it from the other 3 biggest RTS titles. Starcraft (0 RNG, heavy macro/micro, scout/build/tech, paper/rock/scissor style), Age of empires 2 (HEAVY HEAVY economic/macro focus, adaptation to maps) and Warcraft 3 (more combat oriented, still plenty of capped RNG (items, crits, damage).

You don't headbutt flipping 50/50 coins, rather than take opportunity when you have favourable 80/20 or 90/10 situations.

There are times when AT shell bounces off 3-4 times in a row while opponent hits every time. With players having equal level of skill, sometimes this becomes the deciding factor. It should not be like this. How about a mortar wiping out a Grenadier squad with one hit, while your mortar do absolutely no damage to the enemy with 5-6 hits?

1- If the result of a whole game is decided by a single tank fight, on which none of each player is available to either soft retreat, use other AT sources, or been able to support it with infantry, then it must be one heck of a close game and YES, uncertainty is what makes this game interesting. IF you have no back up plan and you YOLO your units, then it's only your fault. Sometimes you have to take those risks, yes, but that's the beauty of this game.

2- A mortar wiping a squad with one hit, NOWADAYS, means that your unit was already damaged, you were using light cover (0 explosive dmg reduction) and your models were clump up together.
If your mortar doesn't hit shit, then you are using it against mobile units, you are not providing LoS, you are relying on autofire, etc.

This screams to me like: the enemy has pinpoint accurate shells while my indirect fire doesn't hit shit.

How do you know Coh will not be better without RNG? Did you try it? While in doubt just give options to turn it off. Those who want it can play with it, those who don't want can switch it off. And of course like you said there are other games without RNG, which means RNG is not a must for games.

Because anyone who wants to play without RNG, is playing other things like SC2? There's no such thing as removing RNG outside of making your own mod, which alters of profiles on all weapons, all unit models, everything. 0 RNG means a whole team of people working in remaking a whole different game. It would be easier to fund a whole new game studio than trying to make the game free from RNG.

- I have not played DOTA or WC3, so I don't have much idea about them.
- Map is not equal for Coh2 too. I wish maps were symmetric as well. AoE generated maps are far more fair than some of the Coh2 handmade maps.
- I think they should not be considered, it is too much for a single player game. For example, in Coh2 nobody has to worry about ammo stock. MG fires forever without supply, that is perfectly fine. If you consider each and everything then you will be playing as one member of squad or one crew member of a tank.
- Never heard of Hearthstone.
- PUBG is more like hide and seek game, rather than a skill game.
- I am sure there are many sports games without RNG, for example Tennis, Basketball etc.

I thought you were asking about COMPETITIVE E-Sport aspects/games.

-DOTA/LOL, kings of MOBAs, kings of esports ATM, have something called criticals. Basically you have say a 10% of having an increased damage output.
-Warcraft 3, game which set bases for DOTA, has damage been done in a certain range (say 6-10), some units having crits (blademaster) and most important, creeps (neutral minions on map) which provide items when killed upon. Those items are randomly chosen from a certain "bag tier". Sometimes you get items which are ideal for your strategy, sometimes you just have to sell them for gold.
-FPS = Shooters aka Counter, CoD, Battlefield, etc. When i mentioned recoil/spread/cone of fire, i mean that there's some desviation a bullet has from when it comes out from the barrel of the gun. Different games applies these concepts in unique ways, but to put it simple, even if your crosshair is perfectly alligned into the hitbox of the enemy, if you are using your weapon in a non practical way (say no ADS - aiming down sights, while moving/jumping, etc) you wont hit your target (or might with luck).
-PUBG: i guess people like Shroud (ex Pro CS player) are just "lucky".
-Hearthstone: Blizzard's "Wizard poker". AKA Magic The Gathering for dummies based on World of Warcraft.
-I'm talking about the E-Sports videogames which are based on real sports. Most if not ALL of them, have a certain degree of RNG on their base mechanics. Be it how accurate they kick the ball or how precise they throw it to the basket.
-PD: Maps on CoH2. That's is why on tournaments, people play on both sides of the map, with opposing factions and in case of a draw, whoever play more effectively (tickets) ends with the decision to choose later which faction/side he wants.

There's no such thing as removing RNG outside of making your own mod, which alters of profiles on all weapons, all unit models, everything. 0 RNG means a whole team of people working in remaking a whole different game. It would be easier to fund a whole new game studio than trying to make the game free from RNG.

This should not be the case. The random factor should be a fixed number (maybe 0.5) instead of polling it from a pseudo random number generator. It should be absolutely easy to change, maybe just a few lines of code. The game should be balanced from the beginning anyway. If not then at least you can play against the same faction in a mirrored map which would give you 100% balanced game.

At this point you're probably better off finding a different game.

RNG-based accuracy and penetration is how CoH works. To represent those differently would take a total rethink of the very design of the game. That's not going to happen in a patch and it's definitely not going to happen in a five year old game.

At this point you're probably better off finding a different game.

RNG-based accuracy and penetration is how CoH works. To represent those differently would take a total rethink of the very design of the game. That's not going to happen in a patch and it's definitely not going to happen in a five year old game.

Do you have any recommendation? I have played a lot of AoE and RoN. I want WW2 based game.

You'd be hard pressed to find a WW2 strategy game without RNG because it's the easiest way to model armour penetration, a key element of tank versus tank warfare.

What you said sounds like this -

If a top seed tennis player plays against the 100th seed, give one of them randomly a smaller racket each turn. Otherwise you know who is going to win.

In the context of tennis, there are plenty of examples of RNG due to environmental conditions.

Truly equal sterile conditions only exists in mathematics. Any idea that you needs purely sterile and RNG free conditions for fair and equal contest is pure fantasy. The game uses asymetrical factions anyways, which is inheritly not equal.

If you don’t like it, play something else.

This should not be the case. The random factor should be a fixed number (maybe 0.5) instead of polling it from a pseudo random number generator. It should be absolutely easy to change, maybe just a few lines of code. The game should be balanced from the beginning anyway. If not then at least you can play against the same faction in a mirrored map which would give you 100% balanced game.

That's not even remotely close to how rng works...

.5 means nothing. There is no fixed scale for rng.

I think he meant having every random function in the game return the exact midpoint of the possible range.

In the context of tennis, there are plenty of examples of RNG due to environmental conditions.

Plenty? Really! Like raining in one half of the court?

I think he meant having every random function in the game return the exact midpoint of the possible range.

Yes. It could be midpoint or any point, just should always be the same.

I played a tank shooter game called "War Machines" on Android. It was a good game with a lot of players till it became extreme pay to win. I don't think there was any randomness in it but it was great fun.

I think he meant having every random function in the game return the exact midpoint of the possible range.

That sounds nice, except for the fact that guns can't just half penetrate and half hit

I guess you could just multiply a weapons damage by its accuracy and penetration and by the target's RA, then divide by the target's armor. But then you have stuff like luchses doing consistent, albeit very low, damage against pershings. Also, what about moving accuracy multipliers. Do you just turn them into moving damage multipliers?

Also, what do you do about...literally every tank and indirect fire weapon in the game. They rely on scatter for impact. Returning the "average" scatter roll every single time means they're completley worthless. The no rng approach simply doesn't work for indirect fire either. If mortars did consistent damage, they would be utterly busted. Get enough MGs to lockdown an area, then spam mortars and reliably dps things from a range at which they can't do anything in retaliation.

Returning the exact midpoint of the possible range just doesn't work. RNG is added in order to avoid that kind of thing. RNG allows you to model things that a strict midpoint value doesn't accurately or even intuitively emulate. Mid point values and/or no rng approaches are actually a strict step back in terms of the gameplay that coh2 seeks to provide and the concepts it tries to model.

Also, I know you were just explaining what his argument was and that its not your own.

That sounds nice, except for the fact that guns can't just half penetrate and half hit

I guess you could just multiply a weapons damage by its accuracy and penetration and by the target's RA, then divide by the target's armor. But then you have stuff like luchses doing consistent, albeit very low, damage against pershings. Also, what about moving accuracy multipliers. Do you just turn them into moving damage multipliers?

Also, what do you do about...literally every tank and indirect fire weapon in the game. They rely on scatter for impact. Returning the "average" scatter roll every single time means they're completley worthless. The no rng approach simply doesn't work for indirect fire either. If mortars did consistent damage, they would be utterly busted. Get enough MGs to lockdown an area, then spam mortars and reliably dps things from a range at which they can't do anything in retaliation.

Returning the exact midpoint of the possible range just doesn't work. RNG is added in order to avoid that kind of thing. RNG allows you to model things that a strict midpoint value doesn't accurately or even intuitively emulate. Mid point values and/or no rng approaches are actually a strict step back in terms of the gameplay that coh2 seeks to provide and the concepts it tries to model.

Also, I know you were just explaining what his argument was and that its not your own.

I agree that RNG adds a lot to this game and is a great feature. It adds risk management as a needed skill and makes the matches look much more realistic.

On the other hand what you describe is certainly doable. In fact that is what most old rts games do. You always hit with direct fire. You always hit the ground where enemy was positioned with indirect. You can take down a building with a sword if you wait long enough. Yes, this is totally stupid, but this is how the games we've been brought up worked when you think of it

Of course, adding such a mode to coh2 makes no sense. The rng based model is just as fair, OP simply needs a 10 minute statistic course to understand why...

I agree that RNG adds a lot to this game and is a great feature. It adds risk management as a needed skill and makes the matches look much more realistic. On the other hand what you describe is certainly doable. In fact that is what most old rts games do. You always hit with direct fire. You always hit the ground where enemy was positioned with indirect. You can take down a building with a sword if you wait long enough. Yes, this is totally stupid, but this is how the games we've been brought up worked when you think of it

Of course, adding such a mode to coh2 makes no sense. Both of these are fair. The rng based model just needs a 10 minute statistic course to understand why... and other than that has only advanatages.

Well, the main issue there is indirect fire. Indirect fire/long range weapons arent an issue in other games because you just blob up to them and take them out. But HMGs/suppression are meant to discourage blobbing and give the defender an advantage, so they facilitate indirect fire to an extreme degree. Just imagine if any of the games where indirect was 100% accurate had suppression. Even if that problem were ironed out and indirect fire projectiles landed where the unit used to be and didnt track targets, then countering indirect fire just becomes as simple as moving your unit. This means that hmgs and team weapons get screwed over because they can't move at will, and it becomes all core infantry...which is essentially how all other RTS games play...

Overall, my point is that basically every interesting mechanic that coh2 has is entangled with the existence of rng.

That sounds nice, except for the fact that guns can't just half penetrate and half hit

I guess you could just multiply a weapons damage by its accuracy and penetration and by the target's RA, then divide by the target's armor. But then you have stuff like luchses doing consistent, albeit very low, damage against pershings. Also, what about moving accuracy multipliers. Do you just turn them into moving damage multipliers?

LOL. You are just talking stupid. There is no need for half penetrate. Lets say one conscript does 10% damage to one grenadier in one shot. Now it should always be 10%. There just should not be any randomness. You think its impossible? Well other games like AoE and RoN have this.

Also, what do you do about...literally every tank and indirect fire weapon in the game. They rely on scatter for impact. Returning the "average" scatter roll every single time means they're completley worthless. The no rng approach simply doesn't work for indirect fire either.

Indirect fire like mortars should hit exactly the same pixel you click at. It should be the player's job to hit different pixel if he thinks the target is moving.

If mortars did consistent damage, they would be utterly busted. Get enough MGs to lockdown an area, then spam mortars and reliably dps things from a range at which they can't do anything in retaliation.

Sounds too easy right? As if the opponent cannot do the same thing? So it won't really happen.

LOL. You are just talking stupid. There is no need for half penetrate. Lets say one conscript does 10% damage to one grenadier in one shot. Now it should always be 10%. There just should not be any randomness. You think its impossible? Well other games like AoE and RoN have this.



Indirect fire like mortars should hit exactly the same pixel you click at. It should be the player's job to hit different pixel if he thinks the target is moving.



Sounds too easy right? As if the opponent cannot do the same thing? So it won't really happen.

Snowballing. The player with the advantage keeps the advantage. It becomes an uninteractive dps race where everyone spams indirect fire. THATS my point.

Also, what about tank main guns then?

The rng based model is just as fair, OP simply needs a 10 minute statistic course to understand why...

Statistics is not 100% perfect. While statistics comes very close in the long run, a single game could be lost because of bad RNG. My whole point was that a single game should not be lost because of bad luck. There should be no "Normal Distribution", there should just be "Dirac delta".

LOL. You are just talking stupid. There is no need for half penetrate. Lets say one conscript does 10% damage to one grenadier in one shot. Now it should always be 10%. There just should not be any randomness. Other games like AoE and RoN have this.

Indirect fire like mortars should hit exactly the same pixel you click at. It should be the player's job to hit different pixel if he thinks the target is moving.

You are way too focus on the 1on1 engagement to see the big picture. Have you taken a look at the game's code to say what is possible and what is not ? How do you balance Elite squads ? Do you give them armor ? Do you give them more HP ? If you give other squads more HP, how do you balance indirect damage ? What about nades ? Do some squads survive a shell to the face while others don't ?

What about vehicle combat ? Do light vehicles become obsolete the moment an AT gun shows up because it now has 100% accuracy ?

Look, this is the current DPS formula for small arm fire:

Show Spoiler

Games such as AoE and RoN can pull this no "RNG" design, because the foundations of the game is not direct combat mostly (Macro: economics, building, teching). There's also the fact that individual units have less weight in favour of constant unit production.
CoH design plays heavily around unit preservation as opposed as heavy macro which let's me build units faster than my opponent in order to overwhelm him.


This is gonna be my last message: if you think your idea of what CoH should be like would be REALLY popular. Develop a mod or look for people who wants to develop it. I'll give you an advice: you won't find anyone.

If you are looking for other strategy WW2 games, you will run out of luck if you want RTS with no RNG involved. Specially if you are looking for PvP cause besides Men of War, there's not much games with population. Go to steamcharts for more specifics. Also MoW is more tactic based strategy than the "normal RTS" model.

-Men of War 2: AS
-Call to arms
-Steel Division 44
-Blitzkrieg
-Sudden strike

If you are into turn based games, you have paradox's game franchise Iron of heart.