This is very interesting and useful information. I would prefer it though if the risk was slightly higher (not your issue - the game's issue) by having a certain amount of chance. In my experience playing games, whether board, video or rpg, the games that combine luck and strategy tend to be more fun than those that rely on only one of the two.
I'd rank them best to worst as:
Uses luck and strategy
Uses strategy only
Uses luck only

I think there should be an amount of chance determined by maths behind the scenes in that the damage and defense numbers might be within a certain range for a certain strength and the chance determines what amount in that range occurs.

Before discovering that chance doesn't appear to play a role, I have deliberately gotten into fights with people with a similar or exactly the same army as me to see what happens. Ofc we got a draw. Discovering the lack of risk and reward in doing this made this a lot duller and I lost interest in the battles a lot quicker. I also have fought people I knew I would win because that is a strategy that works, but playing with a slight risk is also fun and it's disappointing that the game mechanics are too predicatable for that unfortunately.