Best combat system, EUIV, CKII or VIC II?

[Less2]

How is CK2 random? Bigger size wins nearly every since time. That's my issue with CK2: it's way too predictable. Got a larger army? Enjoy your victory, sir.

A funny part of randomness is that adding more randomness actually makes it less random and more predictable. This is why you can't predict a coin flip, but if you flip a coin 1000 times you can sort of expect what you'll get. CK2 is the same way. You can say it's more random or less random and be arguably correct.

 

[Ivashanko]

A funny part of randomness is that adding more randomness actually makes it less random and more predictable. This is why you can't predict a coin flip, but if you flip a coin 1000 times you can sort of expect what you'll get. CK2 is the same way. You can say it's more random or less random and be arguably correct.

I suppose it depends how you define random. I'm defining it by outcome

 

[General WVPM]

A funny part of randomness is that adding more randomness actually makes it less random and more predictable. This is why you can't predict a coin flip, but if you flip a coin 1000 times you can sort of expect what you'll get. CK2 is the same way. You can say it's more random or less random and be arguably correct.

"more randomness" is very vague...
If you compare 1 die vs 2 dice, 2 dice are more predictable, even though you doubled the amount of random elements. This is what you point out.
However, "more randomness" can also be interpreted as make the random factor more important.
So if you have 3 + rng(1 to 3) compared to rng(1 to 6), the latter is less predictable, even though it can be called more random than the first.

 

[Less2]

"more randomness" is very vague...
If you compare 1 die vs 2 dice, 2 dice are more predictable, even though you doubled the amount of random elements. This is what you point out.
However, "more randomness" can also be interpreted as make the random factor more important.
So if you have 3 + rng(1 to 3) compared to rng(1 to 6), the latter is less predictable, even though it can be called more random than the first.

Not really vague at all.

Assume we start with randomness: 1d4

Then we add more randomness: 1d4 + 1d4

What you describe would be better described as increasing the range of randomness. 1d4 -> 1d8.

This is also clear from the context, which is that CK2 has multiple different random factors added together (multiple troop types, multiple flanks, multiple tactics, troop type percentiles that determine tactics, multiple commanders, commander stats, commander traits, influence of commander traits on tactics, influence of commander culture and religion on everything) as opposed to the single random factor of a single die roll that determines damage.

Also before someone takes umbrage at calling stuff like commander traits "random", any factor that you aren't looking up before battle is effectively an unknown and treatable as random noise that influences battles. Since I'm guessing most people don't go for the character finder to look up every enemy commander before engaging, it's justifiable language.