Still, going from full HP to dead based on luck is a bit much (say if an enemy gets 5 or 6 hits in), which is why a limit of four successful hits each attack might be a good way of providing SOME luck without providing MOSTLY luck.
Well, you know how maul works. Avoid attacking that bear if you need luck to win the fight. Take the chance if you're desperate, or really wants to get rid of it for some reason. That's a strategical choice my friend, but only if you also take the pain by living with the consequences of your choice without reloading.
The most fun beta version so far for me was the one where new settlements was really vulnerable for creature attacks. Made me really have to be carefull when expanding, if I took too many chances without good planning the game punished me hard.
Was I thinking about reloading? Was i complaining bad luck made me lose those early new cities? Of course not, I was learning that I perhaps should build a military to defend my new cities, not just build as many as possible as soon as possible. The great risk involved made the game not only more challenging, but the feeling of risk also makes the game more exciting.
Reload? Seriously just because the enemy mauled your 'carefully nurtured' hero. Take the defeat and move on. Adjust to the lost. This is a STRATAGY GAME people it is not HELLO KITTY where nothing bad ever happens, where your always suppose to win and get that trophy. I suppose you would want the game to lose every battle and allow you to always win the game.
No wonder games these days offer little challange, the players seem to want everything handed to them with little effort.
I agree Hello Kitty might be a better game choice for some.....