I realize this is highly subjective (one's estimation of luck), but I've kept an occasional database of my cumulative offensive luck numbers, and the trend is clearly that I start out below average on cumulative offensive luck (73% of the time over 45 games). This suggests some kind of bias or problem with the RNG implementation (I'm on a Mac). Does anyone else have this problem and has documented it? Subjective estimation's of one's luck are always going to be skewed to the negative as we are wired to remember the times we got screwed, but gloss over the times things went our way, so I'm looking for anyone who's actually tracked their outcomes and/or looked under the hood to understand how the RNG implementation works.

I have no access to my statistics. But i could give you as a member links to my, say last N games, N = positive integer between 10 and 50, as you like, so you can lookup yourself. Especially interesting is to check the development of the stats in the first 3 turns, because with small troop numbers, as it is very often at the beginning of a game, the luck factor has especially big effect on succeeding turns.

huh all those numbers are confuseing my relativly addled brain

@Hell bender: in this case i can only recommend you to play sth like Memory Game instead of Warlight. Believe me: Warlight is filled to the brim with numbers.

all i know is the math figure to calculate how many troops i need in a given situation other stuff makes my mind smoke