"Dice or Decisions?" Topic

What's a wargamer without dice? An historian…..
Dice have been part of the hobby from the beginning and most of us happily accept randomisation as the price we pay for battlefield uncertainty. A crude tool in many ways.
What should never be decided by a dice roll?

Most of us accept randomisation as part of wargaming, but are there aspects of battle that should be left to player skill and judgement rather than luck?

Morale?
Command and control?
Initiative?
Ammunition supply?
Spotting?
Weather?
Arrival of reinforcements?

Some rules dice for almost everything. Others assume competent commanders and abstract many of these factors away.

Where do you draw the line?

What should always be randomised—and what should never be left to the dice?

Bring on those dice.! While I appreciate the lack of chance (after starting move) and reliance upon skill, but I prefer an element of chance. I like knowing that my orders / decisions will stand a good chance of being carried out but know that even the best commanders faced obstacles, unforeseen situations, and chance. Even Caesar (no slouch himself) famously said, "Alea iacta est". I feel anything in a game can be rolled for; it's the probabilities that need to be commensurate with conditions on the field and adjusted appropriately. Propriety is in the eye of the beholder?

It depends entirely on the game. But in general, the player should have control over tactical decisions, and an understanding of where such decisions may be altered/blocked by some sort of randomizing system.
The tighter the game, the more power the player should have:
So, 1 to 1, as an RPG structure, where 1 player controls 1 figure/character— the only thing dice should determine is the level of success or failure of a player's choice of action for his character.
In a skirmish, where players control a handful of figures/units, then some variety in what a particular unit does/reacts can be random, as well as of course action-based random results (as combat, etc.).

As you go up the ladder, with the player ostensibly "in charge" of more and more figures, and thus functioning as a battlefield commander, the random friction of dice can cover things like failed couriers, garbled communications, morale, weather, unit discipline/training, and the like. I tend to prefer giving the player a high level of agency in making decisions, but allowing dice and battlefield situation/condition to disrupt (or aid) the effectiveness of those decisions.

Essentially, if it's "me," I get all the agency. If it's "me over them", they might screw up, and I need to plan for that.

I can usually live either way--depending on level and period, of course, and weighting the odds. The two I think almost always call for some degree of uncertainty are morale and the arrival of reinforcements. Things are going on at levels the tabletop commander simply can't know about.

Life is random, and so should be our wargames. I'm in Parzival's camp.