calculating risk to attack with 3 or 4 is risk calculation. With 100% luck it is possible to fail a 10vs1 attack. How is that strategic in any way? It would be easier to just make a game on the duel map cause both are lotteries but duel is way quicker
Well like Ollie said, 100% luck is kindof purely nonsense :P. Managing risk is possible with a little luck involved but when there is so much, management is simply impossible. 100% has probabilities yes, but failing a 10vs1 should not be considered normal by any means. So unless you are playing with persons who are used to playing with that much luck, and consider their attacks following it, then yes, 100% can be considered strategic :/.
What's riskier? A stock (in the stock market) where there's zero chance you'll lose it all, and zero chance you'll have a big win? Or a stock where there's a small chance you lose it all and small chance of a big win? Clearly the latter.
You can easily argue about the word 'strategy', but not so easy to argue the word 'risk'. Just trying to hammer that point home. I don't necessarily disagree with the rest of what you said.
And, BTW, 100% luck doesn't mean uniform probability distribution, it simply means that it's an unmodified binomial distribution. You can still do all sorts of *strategic* reasoning about probabilities, means, and variances. :-)
P.S.: I think I've had my original question answered well already by szeweningen. High luck could be considered strategic. I guess it's up to the scenario maker to put forward a good case.
Edited 12/7/2015 09:14:46
