Profile of GachiGasm

Axis iderect fire supperiority, that's a new one.

Sooo wait. If this method reduced RNG compared to the current version, why exactly did people want it removed. I guess because it was unrealistic (which is understandable). Though it does seem like it would promote flame and MG spam if the two completely negated armor.
EDIT: Less affected by the armor I mean.

I believe it was removed by relic, simply because it was just hard to balance it out. They just slapped received accuracy and called it a day, since with armor it was more about what units are facing each other, with rec.acc is more about how many hits you can roll and it ultimatly doesn't matter what unit faces what unit.

Since damage done to pios will be equal to the damage done to obersoldaten, if you actually manage to hit them. On paper its a more fair system, but as I was saying in practice you can either have money shots all the time or 0 damage.

Hmm. But how exactly does the armor factor into reducing RNG though? If anything I feel like it would be more of the same. Or maybe everything was less lethal? I'm still kind of confused.

"The "armor" statistic in COH2 reduces the damage your infantry take from small arms fire (SMGs, rifles, machine guns, etc.). It does not prevent damage from flames or explosives (mortars, tank shells, grenades, artillery)."
Source

To put it simply:
When inf used to have armor, they were hit more often (since accuracy of units was a determining factor) but damaged they recieved was reduced because of the mentioned armor.
When armor was replaced with rec.acc all inf started to "avoid being hit" based on RNG rolls, while taking 100% damage if they get hit. In other words, you might lose 1 model instantly in other engagament and in the simular one you might lose non, because you had bad\good rng rolls on rec.acc.

What about if breaching was less about instant damage but more about forcing an enemy out of a building?

Hear me out here; the breaching ability basically becomes this:

You pay muni to "breach" the door and enter into close range with the enemy. There is no special damage incurred to the enemy besides what would normally be dealt to the enemy at point blank range. The enemy is not forced to be inside the building with you except for (maybe) a second or two so that the breach wasn't a complete waste of munitions. Then the enemy can decide to leave the building or stay and fight it out.

This way, it's not an instawin button against garrison troops.

I am actually not a big fan of the mechanics which includes any CQC fighing inside buildings (while realistic, I dont belive it will be good for CoH gameplay), but I agree with you regarding breaching being more of a force enemy out of the building rather then being damaging tool.

I would rather see breaching being cheaper and over-all weaker then the regular nade throw, but if breached enemy squad should be forced out of the building and maybe have some sort of "stunned" debuff, while breaching itself should deal more of a static damage being like 25-40% of garrisoned squad HP.

In this case it would allow it to maintain original idea behind it (being a way to deal with early key point garrisons) while also there would be a clear distinction: want to deal more damage? Throw nades. Want to force out enemy out of the building? Use breach.

But still what really concerns me - pottentual no brainer abuse. Since, alright garrisoned MGs are cancer in CoH2 on some maps, but when non MG unit uses garrison its somewhat alright. So what if you just managed to garrison lets say 2 squads in different buildings and enemy is just blobing on you with 4 squads.
Nothing really stops him to pretty much deny you your garrisons and better prepared possition with just 2 breaches, almost instanly. I mean sure, you might lose this engagement even without breaches, but they are allow your enemy not only save him MP (since he would have lost more models fighting off garrisoned troops) but more importantly - time. Engagements which might have take 30-40 seconds, now only takes lets say 10-15.

At this point it would have been easier for you to just stay in green cover and avoid buildings completly, since with breaching its actually easier for the enemy to deal with garrisoned troops, then with the ones who are just stay in green cover.

Garrisons are already kinda a grey area zone. Game impact they have is directly tied up with map desing, number of windows, directions of mentioned windows, size of the building and so on. Breaching brings the idea of buildings being something so strong that game needs additional mechanic to counter them, while in reality they are 100% situational and map dependant.
Realistically if mappers didnt slap huge full-HP church in a key areas or buildings near enemy cut-offs, then there would have been no need to moan about early game garrison rushing. I mean sure, when the we place super strong building, in a super strong possition then no wounder it will be hard and frustrating to deal with.

Just was pointing out that OKW can turtle effectively with an example of a viable build. But the original point was that USF used to lack effective tools to deal with AT guns, which justifies Scott being more deadly then the STUG E. Viability of the Stug is another topic

Well Scott performance mainly comes from its range, if we put them side by side at the same range, they are more or less perform on pair.

The only stugE problem - identity crisis. Its just not worth picking it over ostwind and later on no point of getting it over Brummbar. Its just a conciseness of either removing tank call-ins\adding requirement to tech up and the ostheer T4 becomming cheaper to unlock.

But as I was saying, StugE either should have been ost doctrinal "LV" (unit rewamp) or the easiest solutuion could have been giving it additional range to distinct it from Brummbar\Ostwind via the fact that it can utilize range. Maybe changing the firing model from a plunging fire to a direct fire and adding something like hull down (copy of the doc one) for vet1 could have worked aswell.

Other then that I think nothing could have been done to fix it at this point, without making it broken.