I may be still unclear about some features of the the combat engine but am I wrong if I say it seems to be a paradym that allows zero losses to the bigger side after a certain superiority ratio, and however large the looser was 100% losses are inevitable.

If so, it is a game balance flaw. Biggest players will run away with the game.

If Death stars ensure victory in battle comes with losses, it would seem to me to help with balance, besides adding a little realism.

DOI: Zero losses imposed on massively larger raiding players despite defences being not insubstantial. I found it disturbing to see no way of disincentivising those larger players from continuing the raidning process ad infinitum, and effectively preventing any progress toward gravitron tech prequisite. (FS and Vaccation mode being artificial and imperfect tools).

I have no idea what you just said richtoven except the first 2 lines, and they are wrong.

It is only normal that the loser always loses 100% (otherwise it is a tie).
Also, 70% of the defense repairs.
Moreover, it may seem logical that the attacker should sometimes lose a few ships even if he's really powerful, but what we are talking here is not just few ships. A fleet that is 40 times more expensive can't win with profit. They don't lose just a few ships, but a whole lot, and if so, no one wants to risk his ships and attack.

Can you imagine a war game with no attacks? We can't even have flaming wars in the forums and in chat (since it is so hard to actually do it in game) because flaming is against the rules.

Maybe if everyone buys some wool and needles we could start knitting mittens and upload their pictures so who makes the prettiest ones wins.


EDIT: P.S. Bump

agreed. if i am fleeting i shouldnt be forced to limit myself cause one type of ship is good for another type and only that type.

the way i see it right now the game is limiting fleeting opportunity with RIPs being over powered over the other ships with the RF and the added shield regeneration turned down.

BUMP! as well.