Its not that I want to win every game just by clicking faster. The more things you can do better than your opponent does (micro, strategy, coordination, positioning, etc.) the higher your chances of beating him. The new doctrine system and lack of global upgrades already removed a substantial amount of strategy from the game, so I don't see how reducing a players ability to out micro the opponent on top of that increases the chance of the better player winning.
You make your case well. All I can say is that "better player" all depends on what sort of skills you want to reward. In chess for example, there is no micro whatsoever. Thus, a skilled player depends on seeing what their opponent is capable of doing and counteracting it ahead of time. I think that COH2 is a game that tried to reward certain skills over others. The implementation of this new system has caused issues, such as flanking of machine guns, but I can see the underlying idea behind them.
I think the longer infantry battles are a good thing. People seem to always complain about RNG but these longer battles are exactly the thing that negates the affect of RNG. The longer battles and more "dice rolls" result in battles that conform more to the basic unit stats. You can get lucky in a handful of dice rolls but if you do it enough times statistically it will balance out.
I think that's a good point. RNG would decide engagements in COH1 as well, they were just shorter so you spent less time praying to the RNG gods for a favorable outcome. I think the RNG factor is more a question of the difference between being lucky and being unlucky more so than the length of an engagement.
Edit: I think I understand what stephen is saying. Fewer engagements before a tech upgrade means that a game is decided on those few engagements alone and gives a player less of an opportunity to formulate a strategy before it's over. I don't see how RNG factors into that though given what I mentioned above.
You think all the stupid shit that happens in this game is done right.
Yes, that is clearly what I said.