Confirmation Bias at its finest. You should gather a huge sample size before you make these kind of suggestions. I can, however, understand the frustration behind it.
The truly frustrating part, that has nothing to do with confirmation bias, is the design that you *can* have such drastically different access to crucial resources on a small amount of RNG calls. In other words, too much is staked on too few rolls. Compare the number of rolls to resolve a single battle to that of a ruler. You get more RNG in one close-ish (the only time the dice matter much) battle than you get from 1/4 of the game's entire timeline in rulers. People use confirmation bias in both cases, but being screwed over by a string of bad combat rolls to the point of significantly hampered game progress is a *lot* less likely...AND there is a *lot* more player agency in impacting the battlefield on top of it.
But then derp have a 1 3 0 ruler get wrecked scrub. What's that? You're focusing MIL? Lol, so is the 2 2 6 guy, who across 20 years 1440 MIL points on you, buys a tech ahead-of-years around 10 years ahead and face rolls your sorry *** with a shock 4 general (he rerolled 5x to get it) and a tactics lead. Maybe you need to learn how to play the game better. Skill can overcome a .25 tactics lead and +3 shock advantage you see.
It doesn't matter that between two players, either one is equally likely to get that kind of advantage. What matters is that such an advantage is far more likely to manifest in crappy monarch ruler stats than in any other RNG call in the game (simply because there are fewer rolls for any smoothing effect), coupled with the limited player agency to influence it in any reasonable capacity.
While the OP is pure confirmation bias, the underlying issue here...an uninteresting mechanic with very limited agency either helping or screwing you at random...is very real and has been a sore spot in this game's design since day 0. That's before we even talk about the ahistorical, agameplay nonsense that is "regency councils can't declare wars", which somehow even with + 250% chance of heirs your heir dying why your ruler is 60 still leaves you with 0 backups and now way of knowing that unless your heir dies...not that it would matter because for some reason you can't influence it.
Of course, the government type that allows you to avoid all this absurdity, republics, is limited to an extremely small band of choices OR forces you to wade through two often-suboptimal idea groups during the most crucial period where your monarch stats matter the most...early on before +3 advisors.
The way rulers work now is comparable to combat being decided by whoever does more damage on the first dice roll, then the "loser" gets stack wiped on the spot. It's not quite that extreme, but it's cut from the same cloth. I doubt many people would find that fun, but maybe I'm wrong. After all, the current model has a lot of staunch defenders with a hefty lack of any reasoning why it's good for it to be this way, so maybe people would enjoy insta-wipes on 1 dice roll, too. It would have a similar impact on the importance of managing war resources as monarchs have right now.
