ThorHa wrote:I tend to disagree. The RNG has saved me as much losses as it inflicted.
How do you agree with two seemingly contradictory statements, it simple just be meTarrak wrote:From my experience using the "diced chess" option feels like reducing the difficulty level by one, using "chess" more like reducing it by two levels. A lot of the loses and costs you are suffering in PC are coming from flukes in the RNG. Lowering them has a significant impact imho.
Thor is right, with full RNG the normal distribution applies and therefore you will get as many good results as bad over time. But I also agree with Tarrak than reducing the randomness of results, has the effect of decreasing the difficulty, at least for the better player. My logic here, and this may sound odd is to do with the randomness of randomness, let me try to explain.
Most of the times I benefit from a favourable RNG is when I am being attacked, where I am attacking, by a combination of suppression, mass attack and terrain choices I'm looking at X-0 or at worst X-1 odds in my favour. So with full randomness, I can benefit at most from 1 benefit on a favourable roll often no benefit, where as an unfavourable roll can affect me much more. This makes it more of a skew normal distribution as the maximum benefit of good results is capped while of bad results isn't (again this is where I'm attacking not where I'm being attacked).
The other issue is that a bad RNG result is likely to be far more damaging to my attacking strategy than my defensive. In my attack phase its not just the one result, its a series of interlocking attack's leading to my desired goal for that turn, the goal could be anything, getting a unit next to a flag city to prevent unit spam, or in place to surround a juicy KV-1C and force a surrender (prestige, my prescious!!!) would be two examples. A bad RNG roll in this case dosent just affect that one attack but the whole series in the turn and cause me not to achieve my desired goal.
On defence, where I'm more likely to get the full benefit of a good RNG roll, it would be very unusual for my entire defensive line for that turn to be reliant on said good roll. Yes the casualty numbers may have been better than expected, but there is no knock on effect anywhere else, unlike a bad one on my attack.
So, though in absolute casualty terms it may even out as Thor said, in terms of impact on overall strategy in a scenario, bad RNG on attack is likely to have a greater impact than a good one on Defence. As a result as Tarrik said, reducing the scope of RNG, at least for me would tend to have the effect of making any particular scenario easer, I'm less likley to have a planed strategy fail.
PS: For reference I'm on full RNG for my play through, though I would most likely go for dice chess and adjust something else if necessary to maintain or increase difficulty on another play through.