Profile of squippy

first of all, in some situations you do not have enough repetitions to stack the odds (one shot at sth.)

That's the strategy part.

now, it can happen that your pz4 misses and bounces, but the t34 hits and penetrates 4 times and your tank gets abandoned. the odds of that are very low, so you took the right decision by basediving him, but out of the blue sky you got unlucky, and now its pretty much gg.

the thing is that one situation lost you this game

But you're not explaining why this is a Bad Thing. It isn't that you were unaware of the risks. You gambled, you lost: deal with it. Making this judgement call is absolutely a strategic decision, and to mandate that there is some necessary outcome that the game should produce for you denies that choice, and that judgement.

You could have played it safe. You didn't. That's not a good call, it's a bad one, and the fact that you paid the price is not unfair.

yes, those "suprising outcomes" are bad or good luck. pseudo RNG just means that those events are much rarer.
therefore RNG=luck in some situations

That rather misses the point. It's not just luck like some bolt from the blue. It's 'luck' in the form of calculated risk, stacking the odds, taking advantage of circumstances - all of which are demonstrations of mastery, not mere chaotic accident.

It isn't an unreasonable request, and there is no good reason that it should be declared out of bounds. It's true that they will probably not be used often, but nothing bar the Wehr medic bunker is. Nevertheless, there are moments when it would be the right choice.

It's not an urgent priority, but there is no compelling reason not to, as far as I can see.

Now CoH2, is based AROUND RNG. Almost every attack is based around RNG, and thus a big portion of the game relies around luck. Sure the game is about strategy too, but when a lot of factors depend on true RNG, it paints a picture that CoH2 is as reliant on chance as it is on strategy, which is not fitting for an real-time strategy. CoH2 should be all about strategy, with a bit of RNG on the side to keep some flavour.

People keep peddling this nonsense and it never gets any more true.

First of all, there is a huge difference between RNG and luck. RNG produces a probabilistic distribution of outcomes which in fact is quite reliably predictable, most of the time. It does allow, however, for some outcomes to arise that are several standard deviations from the norm.

This does not mean that outcomes are reliant on luck; it means that some outcomes are surprising. And that adds to the game by keeping it new, keeping things uncertain, forcing players to adapt top the unexpected, showing their chops in responding to circumstance. And in the context of this game, that is absolutely thematically appropriate.

Now, If you were to say: "I would PREFER that there is less RNG, my TASTE is for less RNG", I would have no dispute with you, and probably wouldn't be writing this post. But when you, and others, make claims that your preferences are absolute and universal, then you get right up my nose.

Because pseudo RNG aims to eliminate, or at least, reduce the frustrating parts of true RNG. Maybe it won't reduce the RNG radically, but it'll certainly help turn CoH2 to more strategy, and less luck.

Or as someone else might put it - someone like me - it would significantly reduce the charm of the game, make it much less interesting as an exercise in strategy, and less representative of the material it represents (i.e. WW2).

Not so, in the period at any rate; top MG's are there specifically for AA. Tanks had hull, sponson and coax MG's for anti-inf since WWI, but in WW2 it became apparent that they were vulnerable to fighter bombers and the top MG's were the answer. It's not a waste of ammo; hitting air targets is always hard, but the deterrent effect alone is worth it. A platoon of tanks firing at an incoming strike fighter offers a genuinely respectable threat, which if nothing else makes them less likely to correctly line up a rocket shot or dive bomb.