Which should win out of the following ships...

your fleet has no firepower...the enemys ship have almost as much shields as you have beam weapons, because the attacker rolls 0-43 and your ships defense roll 0-60, your enemy has a great chance of doing damage even though your defense is much better...lots of defense later in the game is mostly useless for its price.

Not to mention that a non-similar type of defense still has an effect. Granted it is only the square root of its value. I agree with lucky, your ships were way underpowered in terms of weaponry.

According to my calculations, one of ships had a 63% probability of doing at least one damage to the defender per round. (attack of 5, defense of 4+3) so yes, it IS wierd that with three of them you only managed to do one hp damage.

You must have had some seriously unlucky rolls.

I agree with everyone else, you should of lost. Now if this had been in DA, you most likely still would of lost but you would of done much more damage due to degrading defenses in combat.

You guys are all wrong. Didn't you see my post? Even Kyro's battle simulator gives 88% chance of victory for his ships.

lots of defense later in the game is mostly useless for its price.

This statement is very interesting?

I know that defence technology and ship hitpoints kinda fall behind weapons technology towards the end off a game. I also know that it is better to use a single ship rather than a fleet against single ships towards the end of a game.

Anyway, so my mistake was to emphasise defense too much rite?

You must have had some seriously unlucky rolls.

Possibly. This is the one thing that irks me the most about combat in this game... too much luck. I don't know about other people, but i am here for the strategy not the luck. Sh-t, if i was interested in luck then i would simply throw this game in the bin and run off down the casino!

teancum, is right i missed that your attacker uses missiles and your defense shields so your defense is useless basic a value of 7.7 point defense... i always have about twice as much attack rating as defense, also i put multiple defenses on ships if the AI's have multiple weapons techs, many people says that multiple defense is a waste, but i find it a solid method, i almost always have 2 types of defenses on my ships.
and as for featauril, just look at the numbers you dont need kyro's battle sim or a calculator to see he never had a chance... that fleet would be lucky to score 3hps of damage.

i am here for the strategy not the luck. Sh-t, if i was interested in luck then i would simply throw this game in the bin and run off down the casino!

i hear ya, the battle portion of GCII is sad...DA is slightly better but only slightly. if i could control my ships, give them their target maybe make do some predetermined manuvers, rather than fly in random directions, which drives me crazy! if it had these abilities i dont think i would ever stop playing.

and as for featauril, just look at the numbers you dont need kyro's battle sim or a calculator to see he never had a chance... that fleet would be lucky to score 3hps of damage.

But kryos fleet combat simulator gives him a over 99% winning chance.

The fleet sim hasn't been updated in quite a while, and doesn't account for things like Luck ability, so it may not be accurate at the moment.

You guys are all wrong. Didn't you see my post? Even Kyro's battle simulator gives 88% chance of victory for his ships.

Yes, I saw your post, and while I haven't crunched the numbers in detail I know the math well enough to get round numbers in my head.

5 attack vs a defense of 4 (shield) and 4.x (sq rt of 18 Pt Defense)

Each round you're rolling 0-5 attack vs 0-8 defense per ship. You should have done more damage than just 1, but that's just bad luck.

Inversely his attacks were doing 0-43 against your 0-60 defense, much higher odds that he'll do at least some damage each attack, with the occasional lucky hit doing significant damage. Heck, it's even possible to take out a ship in 2 shots.

Short answer, you odds appear against you and you should have done more damage to his defender but luck wasn't on your side that time. Again, in DA you would of performed better due to defense degradation.

Short answer, you odds appear against you and you should have done more damage to his defender but luck wasn't on your side that time. Again, in DA you would of performed better due to defense degradation.

That defence degredation is an interesting concept, i like it, a few more concepts along those lines to eliminate the chances of extreme luck outcomes would be fantastic!

I proposed an idea in other posts actually... 'a second round luck limitor' It works by calculating a minimum possible defence or attack based on the first round outcome. So for example if a ship rolls an attack or defence below 50% on the first round, then the luck limitor steps in on the second round and guarranteers a minimum roll of say 20% second round, 40% 3rd round, 100% 4th round. After the fourth round, the cycle begins again.

So basically, the more unlucky you are, the more extensive a percentage minimum is forced upon your combat outcome.

These figures are just gestimates, but what do people think of the basic idea?

So basically, the more unlucky you are, the more extensive a percentage minimum is forced upon your combat outcome.

Or just pick a Luck ability bonus and Universalists as your party, for a total 50% luck. That means that in combat in DA, you'll never roll less than 50% of your attack power. So buying some in-game luck is a very easy way to compensate for a lack of the real thing

Or just pick a Luck ability bonus and Universalists as your party, for a total 50% luck. That means that in combat in DA, you'll never roll less than 50% of your attack power. So buying some in-game luck is a very easy way to compensate for a lack of the real thing

So *that's* what the Luck ability does. Is this just a DA adaptation or has it been like this all along? Also does luck do anything else both in DL and DA?

So *that's* what the Luck ability does. Is this just a DA adaptation or has it been like this all along?

I honestly don't remember if it was like that before, but that's what it does in DA.

I am genuinely sorry about this Kryo, but now I have to kill you. This was something that I had figured out fairly early in my gameplay, and had kept to myself just in case multiplayer was ever implemented.

has it been like this all along?

When I played my first games, I found a number of Lucky Ranger ships. I thought: more luck, more Lucky Rangers. Nope. I did notice, however, that I was winning fleet battles more often. Not only winning, but dominating. Destroying entire enemy fleets while taking only a few points in damage. Now I, like everyone, try to design my ships to counteract the enemy's strengths, but being an ex D&D player, I recognized the 'roll of the dice', and surmised that the Luck ability is what gave me the edge. Oh well. If nothing else, this revelation will make players think much more seriously about their party affiliations and starting abilities.

Hmm, Kryo had already explained this some time ago, in his DA combat system thread. It wasn't exactly news.   
Luck being an ability, well, imagining an entire race being "lucky" is kinda silly. Too many abilities in the game. I understand that it gives extra flexibility to the races, but it feels so artificial, with all the ways you have to pump them (racial, party, research,...).

Or just pick a Luck ability bonus and Universalists as your party, for a total 50% luck. That means that in combat in DA, you'll never roll less than 50% of your attack power. So buying some in-game luck is a very easy way to compensate for a lack of the real thing

This luck ability seems a bit strange. It kindof makes attack abilities obselete since it would always be more of an advantage to choose luck.

Does luck effect defence?

Does luck effect defence?

Not AFAIK.

This luck ability seems a bit strange. It kindof makes attack abilities obselete since it would always be more of an advantage to choose luck.

Well, luck is exactly worth as much as attack. And they stack. But I would say that for a 1pt ability 25% luck is way better than 10% attack (what you get for 1pt). Luck should at least be increased to 2pts, even 3pts since its effect multiply with other attack bonuses, instead of only adding to.

Luck being an ability, well, imagining an entire race being "lucky" is kinda silly.

Haven't you seen the NE Patriots any time in the past 5 or so years?

Maybe Luck should also have some part in that extra "critical hit" phase of combat, increasing attack value so that even outgunned you may actually have a chance to win.

Hmmm, i noticed recently, i played the altarians with another stat in luck + the universalists as party.

Somewhere in the game, i found my first "lucky Ranger". They called it that way, and after that every 8 turns or so, i found another "lucky Ranger".

Needless to say i rolled pretty much over my enemies.

This all happened in 1.0 Dreadlords though, cant say for sure if they changed that in the newest patches

Somewhere in the game, i found my first "lucky Ranger". They called it that way, and after that every 8 turns or so, i found another "lucky Ranger".

Ah yes i remember playing a game before as unaversalists. I was getting "lucky rangers" yes after about an equal number of turns each time, i would get another one

I play as universalists quite often and hardly ever get lucky rangers. I had heard that the luck trait helps with anomoly loot. Not sure if it really does, but I have hit three 2500bc anomolies in a row more than once while having boosted luck.