Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

If a proper wargame requires 0 skills, then I'd argue that poker isn't a game of skills but that of pure luck - which if you know even a little bit about poker you'd know that this isn't true.

Playing the odds and manipulating the battlefield to lever your chances is what differentiates between a novice and experienced players.

The problem is skills don't matter as much anymore in 40k because there are certain delete buttons in the game that outright ignore all tactics.

momerathe wrote:
Different people have different approaches to the game - some people enjoy cutthroat competition, some are into it for beer and pretzels (soft drinks for minors ). I'm imagining that hardcore competitive gamers are more near the top, and more casual gamers are further down the scale, but I'd be interested to see what the range of opinions are.

(obviously it depends on the size of the skill difference, but for a baseline consider the people who show up at your local FLGS)

I was particularly thinking about this while listening to a tournament podcast - the ITC rules seem pretty efficiently designed as a sorting algorithm for selecting tournament winners (allowing for matchup etc.); much shade is thrown on maelstrom for being too random (although not just for that), but maybe it's just a question of horses for courses.

There isn't a good answer. Was Henry the better skilled general in the Battle of Agincourt, or were the French just unlucky with the weather? Was Ike better than von Rundstedt or hampered by less command authority? In theory an ideal wargame would incorporation these sort of random obstacles, and provide a way to judge each army's ability to overcome or abuse these advantages to compare if General A better abused the advantage, or General B better resisted it regardless of who won or lost "the battle".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:
If a proper wargame requires 0 skills, then I'd argue that poker isn't a game of skills but that of pure luck - which if you know even a little bit about poker you'd know that this isn't true.

Playing the odds and manipulating the battlefield to lever your chances is what differentiates between a novice and experienced players.

The problem is skills don't matter as much anymore in 40k because there are certain delete buttons in the game that outright ignore all tactics.

The difference between skill and luck is usually the person writing the After Action Report.

Taffy 3 skillfully ran into a storm squall to avoid enemy fire.

The Japanese were unable to fire on the American carriers after they were unluckily cursed with bad weather and low visibility

Daniel Negraneau skillfully baited Phill Helmuth to all-in call his straight, before filling out his nut-flush draw on the river.

Phill Helmuth called Daniel Negraneau's flush draw before a catastrophic turn of Lady Luck's hand filled in Daniel's flush.

Skill is calling the shot . . . and making it.

Luck is making the shot _without_ calling it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Skill will only get you so far as a general. Once the die are cast, you have no input to the result.

So saying, a skilled general can reduce the chances of bad luck being fatal.

 Stux wrote:
I voted 70% for what it's worth. The worst player in the shop winning only 1/10 games is unacceptable in my opinion. 1/5 still not great. 3/10 seems ok.

Agree with this. Studies have shown that one of the major reasons why MtG has stayed afloat while most other TCGs died at some point is that even with a high difference in skill-levels any player wins the game sometimes. This is what makes Beer&Prezel gaming possible, because some people just have more innate talent for strategy than others.

There is no beer&prezel chess.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Stux wrote:
I voted 70% for what it's worth. The worst player in the shop winning only 1/10 games is unacceptable in my opinion. 1/5 still not great. 3/10 seems ok.

Agree with this. Studies have shown that one of the major reasons why MtG has stayed afloat while most other TCGs died at some point is that even with a high difference in skill-levels any player wins the game sometimes. This is what makes Beer&Prezel gaming possible, because some people just have more innate talent for strategy than others.

There is no beer&prezel chess.

This is true, but at the same time, from my own experiences, whilst everyone might get a chance at winning in MTG matches; when its the beginner against an experienced player the beginner tends to only win if the experienced player gets shafted by their shuffling. Ergo you play the game and they get 1 land card the whole match; or they keep drawing all their expensive stuff or none of their combo cards etc... Ergo the less experienced player can see that the experienced player is losing not because of skill, but because the luck of the draw is purely screwing them over for one match.

So in my view its a victory, but its a hollow victory. Otherwise the general state of affairs is the better built better played deck will win a vast majority of the time. One bonus though is that matches are faster; much faster. So whilst there's the same skill difference it can get lost because, provided the group is large enough, players will settle with those of a similar skill level and should get enough matches of variety to win some and lose some.

Lots of people are content with winning through luck and many inexperienced players will not be able to tell that they just won because of luck.
The kind of people you are referring to are the competitive guys (MtG calls them "Spikes"), those tend to take losses as a challenge and will get better and start winning games eventually.

In a beer&prezel setting winning is not that important, but I have not seen a single person stay in the game after losing 20 games in a row. Even the most casual fluff-bunny will complain about not having won a game in a long time eventually, people just work that way.

Deck building is an issue obviously, but so is army building in 40k. I've had so many games where Mortarion hulk-smashed the entire enemy army because they thought four lascannons and a combi-melta were enough for anti-tank.

I like the idea of this poll in the context of tournament gaming. With BCP and other data sources and 40kstats.com and chapter tactics reviewing the details of tournament stats it raises the idea of probabilities of victory between 2 competent players based on their win/loss records.

We are not far away from having statistical assessments of players in big matchups. The e-sports thing could be quite entertaining. Obviously sample sizes aren't big enough yet.

60, tops. Elsewise being a new player is a curse they'll never surpass, and won't want to continue on with the game. You're basically shooting 'growing the audience' in the head.

At least if I grasp what is thread seems to think 'skill' is.

Voss wrote:
60, tops. Elsewise being a new player is a curse they'll never surpass, and won't want to continue on with the game. You're basically shooting 'growing the audience' in the head.

At least if I grasp what is thread seems to think 'skill' is.

Yes and no - in an ideal world a highly experienced player playing against a beginner will:

a) Play with a handicap (eg less points) to level the playing field somewhat.

b) Be playing introduction games where who wins doesn't matter and the armies might not even be proper armies as they are showing mechanics, tactics, theories,

c) Play but not play at their best- they might use a weaker list for example.

d) Both go into it but the beginner knows they are going to lose, but is able to view how their opponent plays and use it as a teaching mechanic - seeing how they lose and what works and what doesn't


In theory and in an ideal world a pro and beginner shouldn't be playing each other regularly and playing their best game without any handicap in place. Otherwise I agree a pro would nearly always win against the beginner and that will put the beginner off.
However if the game is based on skill more than luck then the beginner has a more even chance to improve their game over time and rise up. If its far more luck than skill then the beginner will find it a LOT harder to improve their game because the random swing of luck will be a far bigger element. This might mean that good choices and bad chioces get confused with bad and good luck swings.


Eg: Archers VS Cavalry in a close combat situation

Luck based game : The archers having a 60% chance to win (ergo nearly 50-50) means that the bad choice of allowing archers to be charged in close combat might not always appear so bad if the archers get enough wins. With a high random bar a player might not even see the archers ever lose for several games in a row. It's still a bad tactical idea, but because the random is so random it makes it hard for them to learn

Skill based game : The archers having a 90% chance to lose means that the beginner loses their archers nearly every single time. However this makes the lesson really clear and easy for them - archers don't work against cavalry in close combat. Now they can use that along with other things they learn to improve their game. For example they might now learn to screen their archers with some infantry - and in theory will learn to use spear infantry (anti-cavalry) over using, say, swordsmen.


As you can see, the skill based approach makes it a lot easier to see patterns in play and evolve and advance one's own game. With a heavy luck based system the win Vs loss might even out a bit more; but at the same time the player can't so easily learn because good and bad choices are hidden behind a lot more random rolling.

Voss wrote:
60, tops. Elsewise being a new player is a curse they'll never surpass, and won't want to continue on with the game. You're basically shooting 'growing the audience' in the head.

At least if I grasp what is thread seems to think 'skill' is.

Are you kidding? You honestly want a game that is almost entirely RNG, where player decisions are barely relevant and you just passively roll dice to see who wins?

 Peregrine wrote:

Voss wrote:
60, tops. Elsewise being a new player is a curse they'll never surpass, and won't want to continue on with the game. You're basically shooting 'growing the audience' in the head.

At least if I grasp what is thread seems to think 'skill' is.

Are you kidding? You honestly want a game that is almost entirely RNG, where player decisions are barely relevant and you just passively roll dice to see who wins?

well i mean we have Warhammer....

But this would be preferable to the "you're going to lose 30 games before you can maybe git gud" like warmahordes has. Talk about a good way to make a newbie give up.

Wayniac wrote:
But this would be preferable to the "you're going to lose 30 games before you can maybe git gud" like warmahordes has.

Not really. A brutal learning curve sucks for new players but at least there's the potential of a good game once you overcome it. A game that is 95% RNG with minimal player agency is never going to be anything but passively rolling dice and waiting to see what RNG decides.

Wayniac wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Voss wrote:
60, tops. Elsewise being a new player is a curse they'll never surpass, and won't want to continue on with the game. You're basically shooting 'growing the audience' in the head.

At least if I grasp what is thread seems to think 'skill' is.

Are you kidding? You honestly want a game that is almost entirely RNG, where player decisions are barely relevant and you just passively roll dice to see who wins?

well i mean we have Warhammer....

But this would be preferable to the "you're going to lose 30 games before you can maybe git gud" like warmahordes has. Talk about a good way to make a newbie give up.

Warhammer is not at all that. There's a reason the same 20 people podium basically every major event despite half the field having basically the same type of list.

And losing 30 games before you can maybe git gud is what happens in EVERY game and sport where you play a better player. How many older brothers have kicked their younger brother's into the dirt for YEARS on the basketball court or w/e?

Losing when you're not as good as someone at something is just what happens in reality.

I also really don't like that you're basically assuming every loss to be worthless. You can absolutely have fun in a game you lose and even if you don;t have 'fun' you can still gain a lot in terms of knowledge and experience.

Wayniac wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Voss wrote:
60, tops. Elsewise being a new player is a curse they'll never surpass, and won't want to continue on with the game. You're basically shooting 'growing the audience' in the head.

At least if I grasp what is thread seems to think 'skill' is.

Are you kidding? You honestly want a game that is almost entirely RNG, where player decisions are barely relevant and you just passively roll dice to see who wins?

well i mean we have Warhammer....

But this would be preferable to the "you're going to lose 30 games before you can maybe git gud" like warmahordes has. Talk about a good way to make a newbie give up.

40k has loads of this in it, good players win more often. and in this its not that much different to warmahordes at all. one of the big difference is the reach of 40k. making the shooting in 40k far less reliant on movement. It kinda just means in the end that close combat will never really be good outside of OP options. But the more RNG just means less player thought, and more boring games. But 40k, even in its worst state has never really hit that point.
But as you try and remove the skill advantage, what tends to happen is better players still win. But the game becomes far less interactive, Even something like target priority can make a huge difference in Completely mirror army.
And i not sure many players would play a game where the first turn decides every game on the single roll without insanely bad luck.

Its rare in Warmahordes for the first turn to wipe out even entire units. But in 40k that first turn advantage can be devastating enough already.

Depends on how much higher skill we are talking about.
If it's a high-end competitiv player trying to win VS a new, or completely useless player, then it should be close to 99.99%+ (it's still a dice game, so evertrying "can" happen). But it should be some variations to the win rate if the skill levels are more equal.

Try presenting an mechanism for determining which player has the higher skill level, and then defending that definition against review.

You can even suppose that you're given the typical asymmetry in the game system:
- Archers and the ranged units are good at shooting things, and bad at melee
- Cavalry are good at melee and good at crushing archers when they get there
- Melee screening units defend archers against cavalry
- In order to prevent things becoming an archery competition, the army has to move forward to claim objectives in the middle of the table

So eventually everyone agrees on the optimal mix of those units to use to achieve battlefield objectives. So the natural progression is that people determine what the counter-choices against the optimal mix are, and realize that the counter choices aren't the same as the optimal mix. Now two players sit down and the outcome for each player is determined by a significant factor outside of their control--what their opponent chose to do.

What does "more skill" mean in that situation?

This message has been brought to you by the Committee of People Who Have Listened to People Argue About Skill in Rock Paper Scissors (a game, at best, about predicting arbitrary choices). With a letter of support from Tic-Tac-Toe (where player skill is sufficient to solve the game and determine its outcome).

ERJAK wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Voss wrote:
60, tops. Elsewise being a new player is a curse they'll never surpass, and won't want to continue on with the game. You're basically shooting 'growing the audience' in the head.

At least if I grasp what is thread seems to think 'skill' is.

Are you kidding? You honestly want a game that is almost entirely RNG, where player decisions are barely relevant and you just passively roll dice to see who wins?

well i mean we have Warhammer....

But this would be preferable to the "you're going to lose 30 games before you can maybe git gud" like warmahordes has. Talk about a good way to make a newbie give up.

Warhammer is not at all that. There's a reason the same 20 people podium basically every major event despite half the field having basically the same type of list.

And losing 30 games before you can maybe git gud is what happens in EVERY game and sport where you play a better player. How many older brothers have kicked their younger brother's into the dirt for YEARS on the basketball court or w/e?

Losing when you're not as good as someone at something is just what happens in reality.

I also really don't like that you're basically assuming every loss to be worthless. You can absolutely have fun in a game you lose and even if you don;t have 'fun' you can still gain a lot in terms of knowledge and experience.

Also not every game will be against he pro playing their best with evenly pointed teams.
You might well play other less experienced players; the pro might play with a handicap at times to balance out the skill difference; the pro might throw a game or two here or there casually (not always the best policy though). Etc....
As Peri and others have said, in most games if you're new and inexperienced you are going to lose to the more experienced most times. Games are just the same and by and large most people can learn to overcome the barriers. The issues are more social ones where pros refuse to teach newbies or where the game gets an experience gap - ergo lots of pros and then a huge gap until you hit beginners resulting in a huge skill jump and often to few beginners lasting to intermediate.


One might argue that Warmachine's issue is that the system doesn't lend itself well to an intermediate ranking; or that the difference between new and intermediate is too great a skill gap. Resulting in a larger gap for the beginners to jump which means if they don't join en-mass they can find it hard to get into the game.

Can't remember the exact source, but I seem to remember reading a study that said if you want to keep someone invested in a new game or activity, then they need to succeed (on average) around 33% of the time. Take it much lower than that and they'll tend to lose interest. With that in mind, 70% seems to be the optimum balance. Player choice is still relevant, but random chance can swing the balance as well. Neither is totally dominant, which seems to be the key for many players.

How you convert that into an actual gaming system, however, is another mystery entirely.

As a side note, if GW had kept Fantasy on and made its ruleset competitive focussed (80-90% player skill) while introducing AoS as a peer and pretzels (50-60% player skill), they could have been onto a winning formula. Trying to cram both a casual and competitive focus into one system simultaneously, IMO, was never going to work well, and Dakka has the threads to prove it.

TL;DR: 70% because science.

 liquidjoshi wrote:
Can't remember the exact source, but I seem to remember reading a study that said if you want to keep someone invested in a new game or activity, then they need to succeed (on average) around 33% of the time. Take it much lower than that and they'll tend to lose interest. With that in mind, 70% seems to be the optimum balance. Player choice is still relevant, but random chance can swing the balance as well. Neither is totally dominant, which seems to be the key for many players.

How you convert that into an actual gaming system, however, is another mystery entirely.

As a side note, if GW had kept Fantasy on and made its ruleset competitive focussed (80-90% player skill) while introducing AoS as a peer and pretzels (50-60% player skill), they could have been onto a winning formula. Trying to cram both a casual and competitive focus into one system simultaneously, IMO, was never going to work well, and Dakka has the threads to prove it.

TL;DR: 70% because science.

80/20 split has science behind it as well. Check out the Pareto principle. It was originally concocted as a way to explain stuff in business but has since been used and expanded by statisticians and mathematicians because it fits so well in describing many other natural phenomena.

Definitely depends on game. 0 luck would seem terrible in a war game as there should be some chaos or fake fog of war. If I were sitting down to a board game chit type war game I’d probably want 80-90% skill. For Warhammer though, part of the hobby is also the minis and higher luck means a bit more flexibility in taking models you like and avoiding some rock-paper-scissors certainty. I’d probably pick 70%-75% for 40K.

 Peregrine wrote:

Voss wrote:
60, tops. Elsewise being a new player is a curse they'll never surpass, and won't want to continue on with the game. You're basically shooting 'growing the audience' in the head.

At least if I grasp what is thread seems to think 'skill' is.

Are you kidding? You honestly want a game that is almost entirely RNG, where player decisions are barely relevant and you just passively roll dice to see who wins?

I didn't say that, or anything remotely like that.
But the 80/90% takers seem to want exactly that (barring the RNG)- the game has an almost predefined outcome, and rolling the dice will almost never matter, and the less 'skilled' player won't ever make a game changing decision. That's horrible and dull, and definitely undercuts playing and participation.

Voss wrote:
I didn't say that, or anything remotely like that.

That's exactly what you said, you just apparently didn't understand the implications of what you were advocating. A game where you can't get above a 60% win rate by superior skill is essentially pure RNG with very little player agency.

But the 80/90% takers seem to want exactly that (barring the RNG)- the game has an almost predefined outcome, and rolling the dice will almost never matter, and the less 'skilled' player won't ever make a game changing decision. That's horrible and dull, and definitely undercuts playing and participation.

Better that than a game where neither player will make a game changing decision because RNG controls the game. At least with the low-RNG game even the weaker player has a chance to improve their skills and make great decisions, even if doing so regularly may be somewhere in the future.

Voss wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Voss wrote:
60, tops. Elsewise being a new player is a curse they'll never surpass, and won't want to continue on with the game. You're basically shooting 'growing the audience' in the head.

At least if I grasp what is thread seems to think 'skill' is.

Are you kidding? You honestly want a game that is almost entirely RNG, where player decisions are barely relevant and you just passively roll dice to see who wins?

I didn't say that, or anything remotely like that.
But the 80/90% takers seem to want exactly that (barring the RNG)- the game has an almost predefined outcome, and rolling the dice will almost never matter, and the less 'skilled' player won't ever make a game changing decision. That's horrible and dull, and definitely undercuts playing and participation.

Remember its only a "predefined outcome" when you're putting the very experienced against the very inexperienced - the best VS the worst. That's an extreme match up which in general is most times going to go toward the better player in almost all things in life. Unless the better player takes a handicap to level the playing field then they are probably going to win.

The thing is this kind of system presents a logical series of choices and actions which can result in that win. A new player can observe those, can be taught what to look for and can improve their game in logical steps toward improving their performance. They can learn, improve and develop.

When you present them with a game with 50% or near enough random luck on the win/loss then its far harder to teach them how to improve their game. IF at any point you can randomly lose because of the dice then that can be quite a bitter experience because now the dice hold sway. In general games like that tend to be pretty quick and short. The fact that you win/lose on a dice roll tends to work better when the expeirence is over fast because then volume of games tends to even out the win/loss experience.


Warhammer games can't work like that, they are long experiences and might last several hours. The last thing I think most players want is to feel that all those hours of play mean nothing next to the dice winning/losing the game for them.



Of course early on, in an ideal world, beginners will play other beginners so their win/loss rate shouldn't be too bad. They'll also play more guided games where winning/losing aren't important and what they are learning is the game mechanics. A good teacher might well setup the game for the player to win easily to help reinforce the lesson; but the win/loss wouldn't matter. Many times they might not even be playing a full turn sequence or game.

I should think 60% is the minimum to even consider. Any lower and you aren’t playing a game, you’re waiting 3 hours to see what winner the dice pick. And you’d never have pros as they would still be coin flip against a first timer.

Card games and poker work at like 60% because the skilled player comes out ahead in hundreds of quick plays. 60% might be fine for home Warhammer, but you can’t easily build up a competitive scene and rankings with it. Games take too long, you can’t play enough to reduce luck variance in results.

 Overread wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Voss wrote:
60, tops. Elsewise being a new player is a curse they'll never surpass, and won't want to continue on with the game. You're basically shooting 'growing the audience' in the head.

At least if I grasp what is thread seems to think 'skill' is.

Are you kidding? You honestly want a game that is almost entirely RNG, where player decisions are barely relevant and you just passively roll dice to see who wins?

I didn't say that, or anything remotely like that.
But the 80/90% takers seem to want exactly that (barring the RNG)- the game has an almost predefined outcome, and rolling the dice will almost never matter, and the less 'skilled' player won't ever make a game changing decision. That's horrible and dull, and definitely undercuts playing and participation.

Remember its only a "predefined outcome" when you're putting the very experienced against the very inexperienced - the best VS the worst. That's an extreme match up which in general is most times going to go toward the better player in almost all things in life. Unless the better player takes a handicap to level the playing field then they are probably going to win..

That isn't the premise I'm seeing in this thread. That's simply that more 'skilled' (NOT experienced or inexperienced) should just win the overwhelming majority of games. That isn't going to teach anyone anything either

The thing is this kind of system presents a logical series of choices and actions which can result in that win. A new player can observe those, can be taught what to look for and can improve their game in logical steps toward improving their performance. They can learn, improve and develop

But they'll still be behind the more 'skilled' player, and therefore keep consistently losing, unless for some reason the 'skilled' player isn't also learning and improving. What's being presented here as a good thing is a closed system were veterans always win, and newbies are just victims until even newer folk join in (which if they're sensible they never will).

IF at any point you can randomly lose because of the dice then that can be quite a bitter experience because now the dice hold sway

I haven't seen anyone postulate that any single moment causes random loss. That's a completely different argument.
When people complain about the 'dice' losing games for them, they're generally talking about long streaks of poor dice rolls- usually engaging in weird superstitions about dice, confirmation bias, or are making excuses for poor decisions.
The last time I saw people complaining about a die roll winning or losing games was back when random game lengths were a thing and someone did or didn't get an extra turn were they would have just 'wrecked face' and turned the whole thing around.

Voss wrote:
That isn't the premise I'm seeing in this thread. That's simply that more 'skilled' (NOT experienced or inexperienced) should just win the overwhelming majority of games.

How does one become skilled?

It requires the kind patience and caring of an elderly Asian man...and focus.

 Peregrine wrote:

Voss wrote:
I didn't say that, or anything remotely like that.

That's exactly what you said, you just apparently didn't understand the implications of what you were advocating. A game where you can't get above a 60% win rate by superior skill is essentially pure RNG with very little player agency.

By definition it isn't pure RNG, and the argument doesn't address player agency at all.

Player agency _does not_ mean 'my decisions always win,' that isn't even functional in competitive game. It simply means that players have decisions that lead to a variety of consequences- not necessarily the end game. Being able to choose when to charge is an example of player agency. An ability that denies a player the ability to declare a charge is something that denies agency. It isn't some grand conceit that boils down to winning or losing. Its about options turn by turn within the game, that affect the game as the turns unfold.

Voss wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Voss wrote:
I didn't say that, or anything remotely like that.

That's exactly what you said, you just apparently didn't understand the implications of what you were advocating. A game where you can't get above a 60% win rate by superior skill is essentially pure RNG with very little player agency.

By definition it isn't pure RNG, and the argument doesn't address player agency at all.

Player agency _does not_ mean 'my decisions always win,' that isn't even functional in competitive game. It simply means that players have decisions that lead to a variety of consequences- not necessarily the end game. Being able to choose when to charge is an example of player agency. An ability that denies a player the ability to declare a charge is something that denies agency. It isn't some grand conceit that boils down to winning or losing. Its about options turn by turn within the game, that affect the game as the turns unfold.

Perhaps "deny" is the wrong word.

Would "Makes irrelevant" sound better? Because, if I can win with no skill 50% of the time against someone who's much better at the game simply due to RNG, I might technically HAVE agency, but it sure as hell doesn't matter much.

Voss wrote:
By definition it isn't pure RNG

I said "essentially pure RNG", not "literally pure RNG". To get a win rate no higher than 60% even with an extreme skill disparity you have to have a game where the outcome is determined almost entirely by RNG. It won't be literally pure RNG, but from a player experience point of view it will be so close that it will be a terrible "game".

and the argument doesn't address player agency at all.

It does if you're able to draw conclusions from information. If the outcome of a game is determined almost entirely by RNG then there can be minimal player agency. Player decisions can not have any meaningful effect on the game, otherwise skill would be a factor and potential win rates would go above 60%. You have to have a game where player decisions are so irrelevant that you can make a perfectly correct decision at every opportunity while your opponent makes the wrong choice and still have barely higher than a coin flip chance of winning.

Being able to choose when to charge is an example of player agency.

Not if choosing to charge has no meaningful effect on the game. If whether you decide to charge or not is irrelevant in the outcome then the choice is merely an illusion, no more an example of player agency than the ability to pick which color pieces to use in a board game. Pick whichever option you want, or flip a coin and let RNG decide. The outcome is the same either way. And if the choice of when to charge has a meaningful effect on the game then you can't have a maximum 60% win rate. If there is a meaningful difference between a right choice and a wrong choice then good players will make right choices more often than weaker players and will accumulate advantages until they win the game at a much higher rate.