Math isn't my thing just so we all know, so when I say, the probability options of a 1 thru 6 randomiser is different from the probability options of a different randomiser, I want everyone to know, I know the basic principle, but don't expect me to start quoting exacting specifics.
That said, if it was an 8, 10 sided dice, or a 12 sided dice, or a 20 sided dice (all of which are commonly used in games, and have been actively used since the late 70's), I dare say, people would still be commenting on the need to use dice somehow.
I honestly think there are those among us, that don't realise, computers are always "just rolling dice". The only difference is, a computer accomplishes it without the need to worry if the physicality is questionable in the same manner ie is the dice genuinely square as a 6 sider, and therefore not marred in it's role.
The six sided based combat table in A3R for instance, lacks something according to some, yet not according to others. It's all opinion though, and has nothing to do with the adequate application of chance. On a 1 to 1 attack, you get 6 possible results.
If the person does not like the "odds" then it falls to the person to elect to create the conditions for a 2 to 1 based battle.
Creating 10 different results for a 1 to 1 battle, only makes the column longer if done right. It doesn't make a 1 to 1 attack any safer (if done right).
Being able to see that a 1 to 1 attack has a higher chance of failure, or unacceptable losses, is what it is all about. It illustrates that in order to yawn and assume your attack will succeed, you have to realise your "odds" must achieve a measure of force realistic to achieve that result.
In real life, if you always send your forces into 1 on 1 competitions, you will effectively beat the snot out of your forces.
This is one of the more significant reasons I don't enjoy RTS games. It's less about simulating intelligent use of force, and more about intelligent use of resources. If I make X units, and swarm X defenders with them, I will wear down my opponent in X minutes.
I don't know about the majority of you guys out there, but I never did have much respect for our leaders running the First World War. And I don't routinely get off on games that systematically transform any game into a WW1 attrition contest. And RTS games are all basically attrition contests.
Some detest turn based game's hexes. It's understandable, those turn based games reward planning and deliberate actions. They also force you to fully learn the game, or fail miserably. RTS games do not fail when you refuse to read the manual nearly as much as turn based games. This explains why some will balk at playing games like The Operational Art Of War. Because if you don't spend the effort to plan out a decent attack, you ain't going to get far.
And all things considered, modern warfare back to WW2 made it very apparent, lack of planning caused you to lose the battle.
So in a wargame, it is not whether tha game uses a 6 sided dice, it is whether the gamer realised, it's all about chance, and how much chance is enough to accomplish the mission based on how much risk you are prepared to suffer.
In A3R, you look at the map, you look at your forces, you look at your opponents, you examine your objectives, and you decide how best to achieve them.
That is exactly what each and every general must do.
Claiming the battle was lost because you had insufficient variables available in the roll of the die, is just a concession to the fact some players can't or won't plan.
I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.