My gripe is not with the RNG and if results in hostile cluster too often or not. It's more with the nature of double-drops. A very few of them, even one sometimes, can be devastating.So the issue for me is whether this natural variation of the RNG, in its current form, can be modified in a way that reduces the likelihood of one player being seriously disadvantaged by a hostile cluster, or longer sequence, of results. If it could then I would have rather more sympathy with those who argue that a players' contingency plan should usually be able to cope with what the RNG has in store for you.
The player doesn't "earn" them by outflanking, ganging up on a unit or any other clever move. It just comes out of the blue, often between units of similar capacity.
"it evens out in the long run". Yes, but what about individual games? Take the smallest example: two matches, in one I am lucky and my opponent suffers a double-drop or two. Game two the roles are reversed.
It evens out but both games are less enjoyable because of it.
Only this season I've had more than one game with 6,7-8 turns of fun maneuvering from both sides, trying to get the best position. Then at the start of, or early in the fighting...boom, double-drop!
I'm likely to have lost the games I lost and won the games I won were this happened but it sure didn't contributed to the fun in any of those games.
Reserves. Yes, but one can't have reserves everywhere and especially not with smaller armies with high cost units. The nature of double-drops also makes them hard, if not impossible to predict.
If I see enemy units mass on one of my flanks I can send some of mine over...there can be time for that. If one or more of my units get disrupted in a segment of the battle-line I can send units over there...there can be time for that.
If a unit gets fragmented "out of the blue" there's a much greater probability I'm caught with my pants down.
You guessed it...I'm no fan of instant fragmentation!