So you prefer combat that is random to combat that is strategic?
That is an opinion, not an argument.
Err, strategic does not mean static results to decisions. Not sure why you would even try to suggest that.
Of course it's an opinion, I even stated as much, thanks for repeating that. Your opinion is stupid horseshit. IMO.
You're literally arguing that every time a soldier pulls the trigger on his weapon, he should hit his target. Otherwise, there's no strategy. Really sound reasoning there. I suppose when generals are gathered in the war room trying to decide how to proceed in a campaign, they know with 100% certainty that every order they hand down will be will return specific results, because strategy. Damn life and its stupid RNG.
By the way, there's a difference between strategy and tactics. Deciding whether or not your X-COM solider tries a difficult long-range shot or runs for cover isn't a strategic decision, it's a tactical one. Which mission you deployed the squad to and which rooms you build in your base are strategic decisions.
You know, now that you mention it the missions in X-COM shouldn't even exist. Why would they, when the strategic map should tell you precisely what the outcome of the decision to send them on the mission is? I mean, if the results of the decision are not predetermined then there's no strategy at all, it's just randomness and that's poor design. When I am deciding on a mission, it should tell me which soldiers will be injured, how many hostages will be rescued, and what loot it will return. Then I just click on it and it happens. You know, because that's how strategy works.
I expect you will actually provide some logical insight to your position in your next response, rather than simply name a game that doesn't have RNG (which by the way I already did for you in my original response so that's not really new input).