Alright, I watched your replay.
Before I get into reviewing it: if you post another replay in the future, please indicate which player in it is you. I could've watched the wrong one but took a chance of guessing you were the Ostheer, and it just turned out correct.
Having watched the entire match from your perspective, here are my views:
Things that cost you the game
(1) No doctrine usage -- you used only one ability (the light artillery barrage) and that came on minute 34, shortly before the game was over;
(2) Isolated infantry movement -- all throughout the match you sent single infantry squads to cap points deep behind enemy lines. It is not a good idea with any faction as the units can get wiped on long retreat, and is doubly wrong with the fragile Ostheer infantry;
(3) No focus on two adjacent VPs in mid- and late game -- when you face numerical superiority from enemy, your best bet is to keep your units as close together as possible, so going for two VPs that are next to one another (one central, one side VP in this case) is most optimal. Instead you spread your already thin forces over the entire battlefield and suffered from not having enough forces together at critical points throughout the game;
(4) No mines -- as Ostheer you have the privileged position of being able to plant separate AT and AI mines, but you didn't plant either. The M10s would've never lasted against Tellers+AT solutions, and the Riflemen squads would've suffered heavy casualties from S-mines. Instead you just offered the enemy free reign over entire map. Remember, mines win games.
Match notes in chronological order
I'll highlight the more important cues in bold:
* Minute 5: You could've pursued the undefended mortar with your squad, but instead you chose to let it pull back into FoW while you stopped and capped a point. He also could've ordered it to barrage your unit as it stood still, but he didn't for some reason;
* Minute 6: You forgot about your Grenadier squad capping deep into enemy territory against two Riflemen. Obviously lost it;
* Minute 8: You go for the Mechanised Assault Doctrine even though you don't know what tech/doctrine enemy is going for. If you want to go for an early doctrine choice, the best time to do it is at the start of a match, when you can use early units like the Assault Grenadiers from this doctrine. You should either go for that early impact, or wait to see what you're facing from the enemy and react with your doctrine choice;
* Minute 9: Your vetted HMG could've used incendiary rounds against the two pinned USF squads. Generally your opponent tended to leave squads in suppression for long time -- you should always punish that by going for double damage from incendiary rounds and potentially wipe his squad(s);
* Minute 11: Floating 780MP but no Pak for safeguarding against armour, no 251 for reinforcing on field/mobile flamethrower damage, no second 222 to punish heavy infantry play and partially safeguard against possible Stuart;
* Minute 13: Engaging green cover Riflemen with capping Grenadiers in the open. Priority should be winning an engagement, not capping a point you will have to concede anyway when you lose that engagement due to cover disadvantage. Also related to this: build cover using your Pioneers all throughout the match, wiring the side enemy will approach them from. This will win you engagements;
* It seemed like you don't use hotkeys -- your retreats were often late. If that is indeed the case, I can't recommend using hotkeys enough (at least for retreat and vehicle reverse). Not using them can cost you engagements, simple as;
* Minute 18: Floating 700MP while your army is quite small (only taking up 54-55 popcap) and you have no resource caches;
* Minute 19: Getting a 222 when you know you're facing a Stuart and an M10. Also if your opponent goes Armour Company (and you know he's done that when you see an M10), you can be sure he will call in more of these tank destroyers, making your light vehicle choice even more bizarre. You also went for second HMG even though his infantry was much more passive compared to his vehicles;
* Minute 20: Sending a Grenadier squad far behind the frontline when you know there's an infantry-wiping machine called Stuart on the field;
* Minute 24: You have 160F, +26F income and enough CPs for a Tiger. This means you'll be able to call in one in about three minutes (sooner if you build cache(s)), but you go for a PzIV instead. That could've been a good choice if you were facing a Soviet player fielding Su85s (which will exploit Tiger's low speed and its own long range), but you faced M10s that can kill a PzIV much faster than a (AT- and snare-supported) Tiger;
* Minute 31: You build your first fuel cache. Good that you did it at all, but should've done it much earlier when you floated 400-700MP for long stretches of the match;
* Minute 36: After losing a number of PzIVs, you call in another one despite having 200F, thus being only 30F away from a Tiger;
* By this time your unit preservation dropped sharply, and this included both armour and infantry. Poor unit preservation becomes costlier as the game progresses, as you have to deploy fresh units with no veterancy against vetted enemy units;
* Minute 40: HMG set up to cover a far VP without PzIV support when you know he has Bulldozer Sherman. Ended predictably.
You need to work on basing your technig and doctrinal choices on what you're seeing on the field and what you need to counter it; you also need to pick a doctrine you know you will actually utilise; and you should refrain from sending lone squads far behind enemy lines.
On the other hand, your general infantry movement was good in terms of constant aggression, and even better was the fact that you kept supporting your infantry with your HMG on the field instead of leaving it camping. This is something many players forget to do, so well done. Also your over-the-hedge bundled nade in mid-game was exquisite.
One last point I would make is that you used two bulletins (2% HMG accuracy and 2% Pak penetration) that have no effect on unit performance whatsoever -- the HMG accuracy increase is negligible and Pak penetration is sufficient against most targets as it is, while 2% increase will not make it efficient against targets it struggles to pen by default. If you have bulletins like 5% Grenadier rifle cooldown or 10% veterancy speed increase, I would recommend using those.
Good luck in future games.
Also in response to a point made in the video above. The idea that "no RNG=no tension" is simply false. Matches are decided by who makes the most/costliest mistake(s), and that is exactly the source of tension in any given CoH2 combat scenario. When two players of comparable skill go up against one another, it's a test of their micro/judgment skill, and you can't know for sure which one will prevail -- that is pure tension and unpredictability; and it's one based on merit, not developer meddling with code.
How do you remove RNG from all indirect fire?
And how do you remove RNG from WW2?
It is all very simple and concrete. There should be no mechanic that creates cases wildly differing from average results.
Example: a player should be able to know in advance that a mortar barrage of four shells against his infantry unit will mean that shell no. 1 will land in a vicinity that causes ¬5-10% damage, with every subsequent shell landing nearer and causing more damage, finishing with shell no. 4 that does maybe ¬60% damage. Numbers are made up for illustration purposes.
This is (1) predictable, which gives an attentive and well-microing player the opportunity to avoid most of damage while punishing those not reacting to indirect fire, and (2) realistic, because that's how indirect fire works in real life (including WW2). A mortar crew fires first shell, observes results and corrects settings for next shell, which then is more accurate. Etc, etc.
The idea of arranging completely random events is neither realistic nor fun for a player on the receiving end of it. Just because some Twitch viewer wants to lul at units doing unpredictable s**t while gulping his beer and spamming emotes in chat, that doesn't make it fair on the player who has to suffer from that kind of b***s*** despite doing his best to achieve a result in the match.