1-attack weapons cause constant damage

I thought only the defence amount was randomised?

According to you, it would be possible for a Doomray to fail to destroy a standard star fury! I have never seen a Doomray fail to damage a non shielded ship?

The zero would mean a miss.
And yes, it's possible to miss 3km of hulking steal and armed weaponry if you're wondering.
I've tried shooting rubber-bands at my sister with that in mind.

3km isn't too much when the distance separating the targets are best measured in light seconds...

I believe I would have to agree with Ephafn. If it's possible to roll a 0 on defenses (completely bypassing the armor/shield/PD), then why shouldn't it be possible to roll a 0 on attack (simulating a complete miss)?? This would help offset the inherit weakness in defense vs offense under the new rules in Beta 2(b).

Mystikmind : It is already possible in Dread Lord. (If I understand correctly) Your battleship with lots of weapons with an attack rating of 100 have a 5% chance of not killing in one blow the 6hp ship (but still damaging it). Right now in DA, if you have 6 lasers, you will always kill the 6hp ship. (With my proposed change, it your odds would be 1/32 or 1/64, depending on the implementation.)

Mystikmind : It is already possible in Dread Lord. (If I understand correctly) Your battleship with lots of weapons with an attack rating of 100 have a 5% chance of not killing in one blow the 6hp ship (but still damaging it). Right now in DA, if you have 6 lasers, you will always kill the 6hp ship. (With my proposed change, it your odds would be 1/32 or 1/64, depending on the implementation.)

I feel there should be more significant limiting factors for luck in defence and attack. I don't like the idea of the posibility that luck can seriously affect a combat outcome. You know, otherwise we may as well just forget about all this weapons and defence technology, infact just forget about playing Galciv at all and lets all run down to the casino!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I feel there should be more significant limiting factors for luck in defence and attack. I don't like the idea of the posibility that luck can seriously affect a combat outcome. You know, otherwise we may as well just forget about all this weapons and defence technology, infact just forget about playing Galciv at all and lets all run down to the casino!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

While at first I am inclined to agree, a study of military history shows that luck has played a major role in the outcomes of conflicts.

While at first I am inclined to agree, a study of military history shows that luck has played a major role in the outcomes of conflicts.

True but most weapons of the past have had primative targeting systems - a breeding ground for luck!

I would imagine space age targeting systems pretty much eliminate luck as being a factor in combat.

I feel there should be more significant limiting factors for luck in defence and attack. I don't like the idea of the posibility that luck can seriously affect a combat outcome. You know, otherwise we may as well just forget about all this weapons and defence technology, infact just forget about playing Galciv at all and lets all run down to the casino!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

While allowing a single weapon to do 0 damage increase the luck factor, it isn't very significant once you start to have more than a few weapons.
In DL, each possible damage has the same probability. So if your attack is 100, you are as likely to 1 or 100 or 50 damage.
In DA, if you have more than one weapon on board, you are way more likely to do around the mean of damage (50 damage for the 100 attack example) than to do the extrema damages (0 or 100). This is because to do 0 damage, each weapon must do 0, instead of only one dice roll for the total attack. So the luck factor is reduced anyway by the new battle system. My problem is that there is zero luck involved in the early battles with 1-attack weapons and no defense.

It definately needs a limiting factor to restrict luck from having too much fun.

I think a good limiting factor would be this... if on the first turn a defence or attack rolls say 20% then the next turn it can be no less than 80%, on the next turn it can be anything again.

Just a small way of ensuring a stupidly severe luck outcome cannot occur.

Just a small way of ensuring a stupidly severe luck outcome cannot occur

Like a stunt fighter launching a proton torpedo down the tiny exhaust port of a Death Star and blowing the whole thing up

Like a stunt fighter launching a proton torpedo down the tiny exhaust port of a Death Star and blowing the whole thing up

Like a Death Star shooting a stunt fighter with a direct hit and the stunt fighter lived.... because the Death Star rolled a zero on its attack that turn. Sound reasonable? NO it's very rediculous and should not happen in Starwars or in any similar fashion in Galciv.

True but most weapons of the past have had primative targeting systems - a breeding ground for luck! I would imagine space age targeting systems pretty much eliminate luck as being a factor in combat.

Oh, without a doubt, space age targetting systems would be absurdly accurate.

They'd need to be... like I said, interstellar combat would occur in distances best measured in light seconds or even light minutes. A light second, or 3 million meters, has a pretty wide margin for error and, yes, luck.

...speaking of targetting systems, though, wouldn't it be great if we could put targeting systems onto our ships to increase the minimum damage, along with the corresponding tech tree (and maybe even countermeasures that counteract the effect?)

Maybe I misread something here but I think the OP premise is off. Attack rolls are zero - max just as defense rolls are zero - max. Its been this way since day one and I have seen posts from CariElf to verify this fact.

The change in DA is that defenses now degrade during a round. Meaning that 20 point armor can be whittled down to 0 with enough attacking craft. This gives groups of smaller ships a chance against large capital ships.

On the flip side having the game compute hits based on each weapon now means that one capital ship doesn't have to overkill that one small fighter any more. This gives capital ships better chances against swarms of fighters.

All around I'd say this is a significant improvement to the combat system. Some may not like it but then when has that ever stopped the devs .

Attack rolls are always 1 to the max damage. Always have been. You cannot roll a 0 to attack.

...speaking of targetting systems, though, wouldn't it be great if we could put targeting systems onto our ships to increase the minimum damage, along with the corresponding tech tree (and maybe even countermeasures that counteract the effect?)

I think that is a great idea. I would think that smaller ships (presenting a smaller target) would receive some advantages in the defense department in contrast with the larger ships, which can hold more armor/shields/pd...

Maybe I misread something here but I think the OP premise is off. Attack rolls are zero - max just as defense rolls are zero - max. Its been this way since day one and I have seen posts from CariElf to verify this fact.

This is what i think is stupid. Realistically speaking, a weapon that hits it's target is going to do pretty much the same thing every time. If an axeman cuts off the heads of 10 people, do you think it's possible his axe suddenly won't penetrate the soft neck of the eleventh person?? NO, his weapon will do exactly the same thing every time unless he misses.

Attack values should deffinately be mostly static for the purpose of realism.

The change in DA is that defenses now degrade during a round. Meaning that 20 point armor can be whittled down to 0 with enough attacking craft. This gives groups of smaller ships a chance against large capital ships.

On the flip side having the game compute hits based on each weapon now means that one capital ship doesn't have to overkill that one small fighter any more. This gives capital ships better chances against swarms of fighters.

Great ideas! Finally, somthing actually in the direction of realism in combat!!!!! I'm impressed.

No, its not unrealistic. Your headsman example is that of a precision strike, under ideal circumstances. In an actual combat situation, he is not guaranteed to hit someone's neck, and may simply gash open an arm with a given blow. The damage varies.

Likewise, for ships firing at each other at long distances, all hits are not equal. A hit to the life support or to important piece of the infrastructure is going to do more damage than, say, striking a fin or poking a hole in the crew quarters...

...And lets not get started on the difference between a direct hit and a grazing one. There's a reason that tank armour is sloped... depending on where and what angle you hit it, less damage will be done to the armour and nothing may get through.

(I see the ideas of a person may vary depending on what thread he is replying to...)

Sloped armor, for tanks that's an argument, even though with increasing projectile velocity, thickness is not really an issue. In GC, since (some) projectiles supposedly travel at hyperdrive speed, armor being sloped or not is irrelevant (it must be some form of reactive, ablative armor, not to protect well against missiles and beams though...)
As for direct hits vs grazing hits, this system just makes most hits grazing ones, with a small amount being direct hits. It's not very realistic, but in so many issues realism is but a very minor concern in a game, in this game.   
BTW, Luck (the ability) does play a part in this, by raising the min damage value of an attack roll (from 1 to Luck% of max damage).

Well I dug around on the forums and this is the best post I could find that states attacks are zero to max. Reply #13. Its from March. So pretty much day one.

Forum Link

I know I've seen Kryo post about it as well but didn't feel like searching the 98 pages of replies to find the one post.

Anywho...

As for realism I seriously wonder how many of you arguing over *glancing* shots has ever actually fired a real weapon. I'll grant you that modern GPS smart bombs and the like do home in on very specific areas of a building however this game does not model *modern* weaponry. Think more along the lines of WWII naval combat and you'll start to see the *whys* behind this game's fleet combat. Now if they'd just add carriers

The formula for attack is definatly 1-max. Against defenceless ennemies, I've never seen a damage of 0. If it was 0-max, then half of the time a ship with only an attack rating of 1 would do zero damage, which is not the case in game.

What I would like to see addressed, is that right now in DA, the damage is (number of weapons)-(total attack rating). So, in effet, you get an inflation of the average damage done by weak weapons (like lasers). Right now, the average damage from a laser is 1 (constant), while for a stinger it's 1.5 (range:1-2).

No, its not unrealistic. Your headsman example is that of a precision strike, under ideal circumstances. In an actual combat situation, he is not guaranteed to hit someone's neck, and may simply gash open an arm with a given blow. The damage varies

This comes back to my earlier point about targetting accuracy. Do you believe it is reasonable that such advanced space age technology can pretty much guarrantee perfect accuracy? I say Yes. Still, less than perfect accuracy is seen in all the popular Sci fi shows, so perhaps i should just go with the flow??

Perfect accuracy on the scales of modern combat, sure. But in combat over distances of several light seconds? Again, that's a huge challenge, requiring good computers and even better sensors. Not to mention the ability to aim weapons with very, very fine precision. A hundredth of a degree variation on the orientation of the weapon will make the shot miss the target by several kilometers...

Space combat has some obscene distances involved (even though it's not visually depicted in the battle viewer), so its not unreasonable to state that even space age targetting systems will have margins of error that will result in shots that don't hit spot on where they'll do the most damage. At least, not initially. By the point that you're creating small singularities and launching them at people, I'd expect accuracy to have improved.

Hence, my suggestion of targetting systems.

By the point that you're creating small singularities and launching them at people, I'd expect accuracy to have improved.

Actually, i don't even know how you would controll the trajectory of a singularity? As in, what is stopping a targeted ship from simply turning away from it? At least missiles can trach a target, and beam weapons are instantaneous.

Well I dug around on the forums and this is the best post I could find that states attacks are zero to max. Reply #13. Its from March. So pretty much day one. Forum Link I know I've seen Kryo post about it as well but didn't feel like searching the 98 pages of replies to find the one post.

If you take a look at the combat sticky on the top the Beta Reports forum, you'll see in Kyro's examples that all weapons are 1-max.