I preface this with the realization you are posting your humble opinion and placed disclaimers on it. I also understand you're just venting; and yes this is one of the "places" to post such concerns for debate.
However, I think your opinion is riddled with false hoods and logical progressions about the game that aren't helpful to people reading this forum.
It seems that the heart of COH, luck/rng, tactics, and battlefield conditions is being replaced by a more streamlined, DOW/Starcraft style system that has hard damage values dictating the outcome of battle.
Disagreed, by comparison CoH is about battlefield maneuvers, unit preservation and on the fly tactics. Having units you can consistently rely upon, does not change this formula - it only enhances it by opening up more tactical options available to you.
The RNG component of this game is very alive and kicking. It is shown every engagement, every directional bullet calculation, every tank/arty shot that scatters, every plane that is randomly shot down etc etc Most things in this game are statistically reliable, with proabilities of shit going wrong and right to a degree.
This is exemplified by the Conscripts and Osttruppen, who both have near-perfect accuracy, but very low damage.
The whole problem with these units before the patch was due to their unreliable damage profiles; you could not use them in a competitive setting. Specifically, you could not rely on them to exploit an opening in your opponents line that you created through some tactical brilliance.
A unit that isn't statistically reliable to a degree, will never be built - thus the change was needed.
so these units still do the same damage as other infantry, but hit much less, especially when the target is in cover.
This encourages spamming and blobbing, the contrary to what most people want. Shifting the focus from accuracy to damage means that they will do consistent, low damage to all types of (infantry) units behind/in any cover, rather than doing almost no damage at all due to not hitting anything
This is not how cover works. You and I are playing two different games my friend. For one: Cover significantly improves the received accuracy of your troops, meaning it reduces the accuracy of the troops firing at you. Green cover also reduces damage on top of that.
Therefore, contrary to your assertion... increased accuracy on troops makes cover even MORE IMPORTANT.
This is because being outside of cover puts you at a serious disadvantage in even contests. Leaving your cover to charge a bunch of ostruppen or conscripts in green cover over an open field, is a bad idea right now because they can hit you reliably as you cross over that terrain.
Previous to the current patch, conscripts would not hit you reliably, therefore you could just ignore their positional advantage and charge them. I do not wish to return to a game where someone with superior position is at a tactical disadvantage (lower accuracy conscripts)
It even makes whole aspects of the game obsolete. Cover is pretty much useless if the accuracy is near-perfect. Why use effort, lose rate-of-fire and time to try and get my units into good positions when there are no good positions?
See above, your arguments don't make tactical sense. Being in cover increases the durability of units and reduces the hit chance and damage received. Being outside of cover, regardless of accuracy is a disadvantage.
The above is why flanking is so important... because it negates cover!
Mortars now do less damage and have a smaller AOE
What game are you playing? This is simply not true. Their profiles are mostly unchanged.
Check out this clip, Wehrmacht mortars in the current patch just annihilate everything. It's borderline broken if your opponent doesn't move their troops. Tell me that I deserve such a powerful 240mp artillery unit, I don't.
USF - their stock mortar is also very powerful, but shorter rangesd and a slower ROF then the wehrmacht one (also essential in any top level build). The 120 for soviets is just as brutal, if not worse for its extended range.
This encourages spamming and blobbing, the contrary to what most people want.
Blobbing and spamming are inherently weak strategems. Blobbing is susceptible to suppression, this is because the received supression modifier is increased in proportion to the number of nearby units.
Ie. A blob of 4 squads will be insta suppressed by an RE with a bar using volley fire if its big enough, more commonly a single burst of an MG will suppress any group of squads moving together
Spamming of a particular units is also just as weak, since the shortcomings of a particular unit type now become the property of your entire army. Your opponent only needs to build one or two of the counters in order to deal with your entire army effectively.
Ie. Build 8 cons? 2 OKW halftracks effectively end for 20% of the cost of your 8 cons.
Using either spamming or blobbing of the above methods of thinking, will only return short term results and more importantly severely limit the strategic options available to you. thus, putting a ceiling the skill level you can actually acheive in this game.
in COH1, in COH1, in COH1, in COH1
There is a reason this is called CoH2, and not CoH1. The game design is intentionally different. I advocate you play CoH1?
Lastly: the game you seem to want to play is men of war (any version) where things are far more "realistic", and no care for balance thrown into the mix of the game.