As it should. This game is already so trivial to play, some things must be taken out of player's control.
No, this is the exact opposite of good game design, especially in a game claiming to belong to the strategy class.
Planning, preparation, good tactics,
strategy. These are the hallmarks of this type of game. Every aspect and factor should be under the players control. Some things we have limited abilties to affect (like what pops do) but they act in understood ways, and influencing their behavior is possible.
Taking control of the game away from the player is the cardinal sin of game design, different genres discuss it, MMO's most commonly. Its why abilties that remove your ability to control your character are rare, and you have options to escape even then. Its why table top games like D&D, where the die roll is very important still gives the player, the target, a saving throw instead of having the attacker determine how effective a spell was. Its about player control, if weather you fry or not is determined by your saving throw rather than the attackers decision, the player feels better because they had power over the outcome.
Even the "random" events in Viky2 are based on a MTTH system. And when die rolls favor us we don't mind because its good, and the AI is incapable of being frustrated, but when bad dice rolls plague us player enjoyment goes down. Others shurg and say the RNG is working properly and miss the point. RNG is a terrible way to manage anything. RNG is only Random over large scales, small scale you will have biased results. You want weighted number generation to prevent a bias short term. If I've just rolled a 9 i should be less likely to roll high next roll, if I've just rolled a 0 I should be more likely to roll high, unfortunately with an RNG, five very high rolls in a row is pretty common.
Wining and losing should be about player input not the player spectating. Especially when it comes to one of the few binary decisions in the game, the outcome of a battle. My economy doing its own thing is fine, don't particularly care if I'm making my money off paper or furniture, or both, the outcome is on a curve (my income) and several options will bring about a stable economy. Losing a battle or two could have me losing that war.
That's just confirmation bias on your part. The die rolls are fair.
It's true that a bad die roll in the first round of combat can completely mess you up though.
No, its not. I pay attention. How many troops I need in an area as a solid defense, or to go on the offensive is important information to a military commander. When I say I need at least 2 to 1 (and usually more like 3 to 1 or better) or I never win any fights. I mean it. This is not hyperbole, even sitting on max level forts, where one would expect I'd crush the enemy in my favor quite heavily, I get even losses.
I've played many games by now, as a different nation each time. My results are consistent. I will always lose a fair fight, and at 2 to 1 can expect enough losses to get a Pyrrhic victory at best.
