Astro Galaxy - a realistic space exploration game

The Astro Galaxy battle system incorporates ship combat, station combat and planetary combat into a universal battle system.

Attacks can be initiated either by a ship towards an enemy ship / station / planetary structure or by a station against planetary structures.

When an attack is made, all units belonging to the attacker and the defender in that location (planet / moon / belt) will enter combat. Every ship, station, planetary force is a unit in the battle. Units are ordered from highest power to lowest, with the most powerful units going against each other.

When two units battle, there are 4 phases to the attack.

Phase 1: Combat speed initiative is determined to see who attacks first. For ship vs. ship, the ship with the highest combat speed goes first. If equal combat speed, the chances are 50% - 50%. For ship vs. station or ship vs. planet, the combat speed is irrelevant so chances are again equal on witch unit fires first.

Phase 2: Weapons assault. If the unit has weapons installed and manned by personnel, it will fire the weapons. Damage is done to target shields, armor, manpower. Once the damage gets past shield and armor, it begins to kill personnel on board.

Damage:
Ships enter emergency warp and flee if 25% of the crew is lost. Planetary units and stations do not have that luxury. Planetary structures can be either captured or destroyed when all personnel is killed. If destroyed, some resources can be recovered from the wreckage. Stations blow up and are destroyed when all personnel is killed. From stations, cargo bays can be looted and resources from the station wreckage.

Phase 3: Boarding assault. Marine assault units are sent to the enemy unit in order to sabotage and do damage. Marines are trained soldiers, tougher then civilians. If the marines successfully defeat the enemy unit, enemy personnel can also be captured as POW (prisoners of war). The POW can either be disembarked at Sol->Earth for a bounty, or incorporated into the crew at 50% the personnel costs.

Phase 4: Civilian boarding: Civilians try to sabotage / do damage to the enemy unit. Rather weak assault, but could work if there are many personnel. Rather costly though. Kind of like a desperate assault.

When ships are defeated and it flees / enters emergency warp, sometimes the fleet looses cargo. The victor can then scoop this cargo if there is available cargo bay, in case of ships / stations. This way resources, fuel, modules can be looted from the defeated ship cargo bay.


The use of weapons such as viper / laser / railgun / etc is recommended as the weapons will fire first. While you can not capture POW if you annihilate the enemy unit with weapons, it is an effective means of ensuring minimal casualties. Mining outposts and stations that do not have weapons can easily be defeated by a ship with a few weapons installed on it, so it is recommended that all facilities be defended by weapons.

Shields are great in defending a ship, but are generally weaker then armor. The shields will replenish after each battle, while armor needs to be repaired. Armor can only be installed on ships / stations. Shields can be installed on ships / stations / planets. If damaged, the armor will need to be repaired using resources and it may also take time.

If you want to create a boarding platform ship, it's good to use shield / armor to protect against incoming weapons fire and then have Marine Assault Units for boarding.



The Attack timer to position / maneuver

The attack position / maneuver time is directly influenced by the ship power involved in the battle. This serves as a warning to the defender as well as a way to match out forces. Basically, if you have a very powerful ship and attack a tiny ship, the tiny ship will have ample time to escape.

It is of course possible to optimize this attack / maneuver time by the attacker in order to reduce time it takes to attack. What you need to do is try to power down weapons if you can, by shifting marines from manning the weapon to the Marine Assault Unit module, this will effectively reduce your ship power rating, making the attack faster, though it will also decrease your winning odds if you're too closely matched with the opponent. Also, powering down shields may also decrease your power, again with a risk of less defense :)

For example, if you have a ship with just an FTL, Cargo, MAU with 0/1000 pers, and 5x Laser MK I module with 50/50 personnel. Powering down the 5x Laser MK I modules by assigning personnel from the laser module to the MAU, making 250/1000 marines will greatly reduce the ship's power and lower the attack time to position, but the Laser modules will not fire in combat as their power will be 0, so only the marines will enter combat.

Having many weapons on the ship and attacking different targets, a ship captain can estimate how many weapons are needed online to ensure victory, thus optimizing attack timers.

So the attack time to position is in no way affected by the size of your ship, just by the power rating it generates. Thus you can have a highly flexible ship that could be modified for combat speed, boarding, weapons etc. depending on your target. It makes for interesting strategies.

Id like a little more information about how much damage things can take. Im a little confused.

I just had nine modules with a combined power rating well over 11k taken out by a single hit that did 8k damage

Incidentally that was a 9 slot planet instalation that had 3 SHG's A Viper Squad, a Marine unit and only 4 civillian MIF/ATH units.

I very much doubt id have been any better off with an extra SHG, and an extra VIPER or MAU unit as the guy that attacked i know has at least 2 more military units on his ship.

It seems to me that the battle balance ship to planet is very heavily weighted in favour of the ship. particularly in terms of risk reward. The ship captain has minimal risks, if he looses he looses some crew, must do a few repairs to armour and can get straight back into it. the planetary forces however are destroyed completly... Id estimate sunk costs of around $100k or more for that planetary instalation, and profit extracted at a small fraction of that. It makes me think that there is very little point in colonising planets other than those that you have a station at... and even then that wont de safe for long.

And all of this is with an attacker whose ship only has the tutorial reward laser plus a couple of vipers... how are we going to possibly defend a planet and even a planet - station pair against a larger ship with more lasers.

Well the Laser MK I is a very very powerful weapon. It has 6000 attack and if you set it on "pulse" it has 75% accuracy, so 1 in 4 shoots will miss but it will do 120%, so that would be 7200 attack.

When firing a weapon, 6 hit types can happen, each with 100/6 = 16.67% probability chance

1. Minor hit that does 5% - 15% damage
2. Light hit that does 16% - 25% damage
3. Hit that does 26% - 50% damage
4. Direct hit that does 51% - 100% damage
5. Excellent hit that does 101% - 125% damage
6. Critical hit that does 126% - 150% damage

So an attack of 7200 with a lucky excellent or critical hit could cripple the installation.

On the other hand, if you had a laser on the surface the odds would have been more balanced. The planetary surface personnel will fight to the last man, so they have better odds of victory but more to lose if they get defeated. The ships are more mobile, but if it's a major installation you should also have some orbital stations and maybe a ship in orbit.

An Electromagnetic shield module gives you 500 shield and costs 1,500 solars to sell it.
A Laser MK I weapon costs 45,900 solars to sell, and gives 6000 attack.

to get an accurate picture, you should have about 20-30 shield modules on the surface to match the Laser module cost.
Those modules will be more then enough to repel the attack 20x500 = 10000 shield, 30x500 = 15000 shield.

With 15000 shields, you're almost impervious and can withstand up to 2-4 Laser MK I hits easy.

This is a battle that did no go as planned for the attacker, so you can see it's hit and miss even with the laser.

Attacker opened fire!

ShipX Vs. ShipY
Weapons assault
ShipX maneuvers into fire range and attacks first.
ShipX attacks with Laser Cannon MK I using standard mode.
The attack missed the target completely!
ShipY attacks with Viper Squadron MK I using standard formation.
Critical hit on target, doing 2580 damage!
Target shield is down!
EMERGENCY JUMP!
ShipX has retreated from the battlefield due to heavy damage!
Cargo bay at full capacity! Cargo search aborted.

Attacker defeated!

Sure, but the planet only has 9 slots, Where am i going to put all these Shield generators... or is there something im missing here?


Even if i have a 16 slot planet, and a 15 slot station above it. that gives me 31 slots total to play with. I can install the exact same stuff that a ship can. so to be equally matched against a class 5 ship warship i probably need to devote around 13 slots to military use. But that only gives me a 50/50 chance in battle. If i loose i loose it all, if the ship looses, it looses a few crew, maybe some cargo, and must repair its armour. If i want to have a decent chance i need to devote considerably more to military use, perhapes 20 slots, and then i may have 2:1 odds in my favour still not great and it leaves only about a 1/3 of the instalation left over for economic use... which after all is why id build a station like this in the first place. to generate some profit. But then you have to look at how much it would cost me to put together something like that, It will take me many weeks to break even, and in that time our beloved pirate has since upgraded his ship to a class 6... which turns my once reasonably well defended instalation into a smorgasboard of cheap minerals to our wouldbe pirate.

Ok so if the basic shields are so weak then i should upgrade to advanced Shields, but wait, that takes 17 marks at who knows what science cost, and in that time all my SLB's have been wiped out because the guy investing research in weapons has allready got laser, and built himself 3-4 of them, against which i stood no chance. But even if i did manage to hide some away and survive then the whole picture becomes even more bleak when we start talking about rail guns vs Advanced Shields... one rail gun has +12000 attack, one Advanced Shield has +2500 defence. Id need a ratio of 9:1 just to ensure i can absorb 1 critical hit from a Mark-1 rail gun... so with all 9 slots on my 9 slot planet filled up with shields im kind of wondering what the point is...


IMHO the risks to the ships captain need to be increased when he is attacking a stationary object, ie a planet or station and in additon the planets and stations need to get a significant bonus to defence. Can this not be explained through scale... planets are well... really bloody big things. Where as the ships are tiny, what does the largest have 100 * 100m3 double it for the glue in between and its still just a speck next to a planet.


For the moment i will adjust my game play tactics. But the unbalance now makes the game pretty newbie unfriendly, and we all want lots more new players dont we. In the long term it will be almost unplayable, we will certainly have no permanent planetary installations. Even if we find ourselves a nice 100 slot rock home world... pitched against just a small fleet of war leviathans it will stand little chance. You cant say keep your ship in orbit...because well if all your ships are in orbit to protect your planet, what is there left to do?

FWIW I think the ship to ship combat can stay as it is... ships can escape, and the playing field in terms of investment vs Risk is level. If the other guy simply has a more powerfull ship then he can expect to defeat me and perhapes capture a little of my cargo, etc.

Hm, yeah there could be some fortify bonus to offset this advantage the ships have...

The personnel on stations and on surface will be able to absorb 3x more damage because of the fortified position.

We got a few questions on the SOL Corp board:

Q: In a battle, 2 ships against 1, for example, will there be 2 battles if the winner is undecided from the first battle?
A: There will only be one battle. The strongest ship of the 2 will battle the other ship. If the other ship is still standing, it will fight the second ship.

Q: Am I right in thinking that defences on the second ship, planet or station will not protect whichever unit has been selected as strongest for each battle round?
A: Each unit will use it's own defenses and shields to protect itself. The strongest units fight first. The second ship will not affect the defenses on the first ship in any way.

Q: Oh, also, if one ship retreats due to damage, will the fight continue with what is left?
A: If you have 2 ships and the enemy has 1 ship, then your strongest ship will fight the enemy ship. If your ship retreats, the enemy ship will fight your second ship.


Battle order and how units enter battle:

The units are ordered by power with strongest unit on the top. Each attacker unit is matched with a defender unit on the same position, e.g. unit in position 1 attacks enemy in position 1, 2 vs. 2, 3 vs. 3

If either the attacker or defender has more units then the other, the remaining units will be attacked by the strongest enemy unit standing.

how does it look like now? the news say and my laser just did 58%

so its 1v1, 2v2, 1v3, 1v4... ?

In other words what happens is that its all very gentleman like.

Despite outnumbering the opponent 10 to 1 you will all dutifully line up single file and each take a turn to see if you can defeat them...

There will be none of this attacking or defending together nonsense its all mano a mano. Ship against ship... Even if youve lost the first 6 ships you lads/lemmings will not cotton on that it might be a better idea to actually work together.

Still If your lucky there will be tea and biscuits while your waiting your turn.

The upshot is, if you have a ship that individually outclasses each opponent, then your Significantly better off removing everything else but it from the battle. Currently you can safely ignore the combined power capabilities of an opponent, its their individual units capabilities that are important. There is absolutely no advantage in numbers, In fact there can be a significant tactical advantage in using only a single unit.

.. go figure.

@Emi, If combat stays like this its really going to nerf Corporate/Group Combat when it is added to the game. The whole point of fighting as a group is numerical advantage, but if the combat system actuallyeliminates or even punishes that then well...theres not much point.

Can't believe I am going to agree with a Pirate, and especially on something that will help him more than me, but he is right about not having combined strength factor into battles. It is kind of a kindergarten way to do battle.

Though the system has changed a bit since then. Now weapons can only fire once per battle.  The exception being marines. So it would be possible to swarm larger ships. Bad news is the attack timer would be so long they could easily escape unless you spent a bunch of QP to speed up the attack.

QP are starting to strike me as being way too much wild cards in a game of poker...
In an effort to 'enhance' the game, they actually kill it. They create a chaotic situation in which logic is thrown out the window, only to be replaced by a multitude of bad beats. QP usage in a battle would be very lopsided to the older players, and to the cash players. I have no problem with bonuses given to VIPs, but they should not be in places that direct, head-to-head conflicts between players can get dictated by who has them. They should be advantages that enhance "back ground" play, if that makes any sense. Extra fuel, ships to command, extra starting Tech, stuff like that. But being able to play them like like "off the table" poker chips (to stay with the analogy) is like...well...off the table poker chips with no 'All In" rule. They let one have an unfair opportunity to simply buy the pot. It is hard enough to conceive of how much an advantage 33% is for actions, where 10% or 15% might have been plenty. But to have the QP advantage in combat seems like a recipe for player mis-matching that could be overwhelming.

This is just my take on it form the outside looking in. I have yet to engage in combat here, so I haven't seen it up close and personal. For what it is worth, I am not sure I like QP for travel enhancement, either. I would rather just have a tech tree for computers that allows me to speed up calculations. I love the calculation being the time issue here. It is a great idea for replacing "turns" and "bio-fuel growth" and other such silliness. And it leaves the door open for various other enhancements to be added later.

I agree with you too.  When Emi made it so we could use QP to speed up battle times I was outraged.  I actually posted complaints on here about it.  I pointed out how unfair it really is.  But he didn't listen and to this day continues to not listen on that issue.  QP usage for battle timer speed up needs to be removed and instead perhaps create some modules that help to speed up the timer/decrease it.  Perhaps give the combat drives some more use in this manor. Maybe combat drives could decrease the timer when used on the offense while perhaps some sort of sensor modules or whatever on the other ship could influence the timer in a way that could increase it. That way things can be balanced out.

Use of modules, tech trees and the like are always more successful in the long run than gimmicks and tricks. They put the decision inn the hands of the player. You can choose to research or spend hard earned solars on advancements or not. They become a strategic decision. The best games always put as much decision making as possible into the hands of the players, on a level playing field. That is what makes a game special.

Boy we are opening up some really old topics here. Anyway, as usual i need to weigh in as a counter-balance lol


This quote makes me laugh and shake my head all at the same time. Will the REAL JamJulLison please stand up? You point out how unfair it is, but are probably one of the biggest advocates of the wanton use of QP i have ever heard of. (and that is probably only because you are one of the biggest comment-makers in the game forums to give you some dues back)

I also agree QP to resolve battles should never be a part of a combat game. Tactics, resourcefulness, stealth and cunning should be factors for winning a battle. In a game where the combat is pretty much resolved on a roll of dice and odds anyway (derived from raw power), QP battles takes away to right of a defending pilot to gather his defences in time, which may only be an orbit or a system away. However, it is really a nice way to catch a pirate napping before he can run for the hills! LOL
Unless there is a system to lock a combat down with a "fully commit troops, no backing out" button which locks combatants into their choice to attack, then there is likely no other real easy way(scratch that, NO WAY) to catch a pirate and bring him to justice other than a sudden QP donation to either get troops in to defend, or to strike at an opponent quickly. He will just see stronger forces and as all bully-boys do, run away and live to fight another day on a weaker meal ticket.
I have never heard of any battles where the commander issues the order, " errrmmmm sorry chaps, i seem to have made an awwwfull miscalculation here about enemy strengths and defences. Lets stop and have a re-think" as they rush down the hill to attack. Push the cancel button. Now its all right no hard feelings guys lol
The aggressor should be locked into committing his troops at least to a full combat round providing the defender doesnt run. No speed ups, no unfair advantage because one player has a credit card and the other players mum wont let him have hers. After that initial combat, if there are still forces left to give another order to, commit or withdraw, only then should they be allowed to. Locking in a combat shouldnt mean you cant juggle your forces around however. Bring in a unit, remove another unit, to suit the battlefield and the commanders order, providing there is time to do so left on the counter.
This system still doesnt allow for a good solution to pirate HUNTING, but would help defend against pirate attacks, and gives us a chance to add a scar or two back and a bruised ego at a failed raid attempt.
And the other thing to consider is that if the QP is obtained from a direct donation of real hard cash, then it is in the game's (and Sir Emi's) best interests to milk the cow to help pay for the development and upkeep of the game.
So where do i stand on this QP combat debate?
Get rid of QP donation ONLY if the combat system is revisited to allow for a defender to catch an aggressor off-guard. Otherwise, we just all become sheep to stand there and take it as our lot to be next on the dinner table of the feasting warlords. (actually, QP aside, lets revisit the combat system mechanics anyway)
_________________
My two bobs worth again. (not QP) LOL

The general VIP advantages are more than enough compensation for purchases of QP. If the economics of the game were a bit further along, those advantages would manifest themselves there, and getting them out of combat would become more of an urgency as economically active players would demand a fair chance to defend what they have built.

I played Medieval Europe before he had the combat system worked out. The Dev there was adamant about getting his economic house in order. Once he did, and added the combat components, including individual dueling, there was a brief flurry of "quick" skirmishes as the idiots that didn't prepare got taken out. Then, things settled down and it became a more economically focused game where conflicts took more time and intrigue to accomplish. I left the game, but still have friends there, and it is quite an involved, deeply strategic game that embodies what the Dev envisioned. And that is because he created a complex, thoughtful, viable economic fabric first. He gave them something of value to fight about!

Two things I would like to see here is Colonization, and the addition of Food (proteins is good enough) and Water as commodities. We could add Rare Biologicals and use them to manufacture Medicines, Drugs and Delicacies. A corp that can lay claim to a planet can choose to ban Nukes, Drugs and Delicacies, driving up their prices on a black market. It would create avenues for smugglers and 'law enforcement' to cross swords. Again, letting economic choices drive the decisions to engage in combat.

Just thinking out loud now. Didn't mean to ramble. But that is how I think about economic developments in these things. Any one who can code, and wants to... B-)

I'm liking that, BB...

I wouldn't mind seeing those things either bb.




Most of my QP sped up attacks was done during our war.  A few notable exceptions is one guy who left our corp without notice and then decided to ignore me when I asked him why. Though he had been a bit angry about the GC Charter despite him having plenty of chances to speak up when we were working out the details. He got his space station blown to shreds.  The other one who I have done this with a few times was  Tumppi when he was trying to hit Morbius. Morbius was in no danger but I figured I would send the guys ship running anyways. I was paid in QP for my services though. lol.

In normal past raids I have done, I don't bother with QP spending. It really isn't needed for my raiding ship and really would be a waste to spend QP on them.

Also note just cause I think this is unfair doesn't mean I won't take advantage of it in certain situation if I feel it is worth the use of QP. I would be an idiot in certain situations not to use it.  I am sure you yourself have done this with QP in the past.  I do wish Emi would take it out though. 

yes of course i have used it. i didnt like it when it came in, like many developments that may never go the way a player wants them to go. You then have to learn to adapt to the change. Darwin theory. Evolve or cease to exist lol. It is still the only quick way(read, the only way) to catch a pirate ship, which is unfortunate.The "attack, but leave my options open" combat gives all the advantage to the aggressor as i have been saying for a long, long time. At best all a defender can do is keep putting ships in place, anticipate the pirates next move to block that, ad infinitum, until one of us gets bored, runs out of fuel or QP. or their internet connection drops out (also from boredom) i still want to see an aggressor PvP pilot being forced to run a combat round if they attack, to give the defender time to bring troops in, rally and counter the strike. All that happens now if i was to bring overwhelming odds into the equation, the pirate just wanders off someplace else without even a scratch to his badge....here is a thought...i recall one game i used to play once that got a retreating shot off as the enemy turned tail and thought the better of a combat. It minimised the aggressors possible losses if he was to have faced the enemy directly, while allowing the defender some sort of victory in blood for being attacked.

I am always amazed at how over-done and convoluted people make combat. The old paper and dice D&D had it right: start with a 50/50 chance of hitting and work form there.

The best combat systems are the most basic in nature.
-Start with a 50-50 baseline
-Use technology and equipment choices to adjust those percentages
-Add your personnel bonuses or deficits
-Decide initiative and adjust percentages again
-Fire
-Adjust (or partial adjust) for damages
-Counter fire
-Final adjust for damages
-Everyone (including AI) decides what they want to do for the next round

If you want to have other complexities, that is fine, but they should fit onto that timeline, and everyone gets a chance to shoot. Almost anything else is bound to fail, or at least be prone to cries of "Unfair!"  and they usually are.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. But you can build on it. Face it, that basic combat timeline has been around since the Renaissance, when miniature war games were first played for prizes (maybe late Middle Ages, I will have to check that to be sure. Its been a while since I read on this topic.) and units were measured for distances and "points" were given for the damage of catapults and culverin, and charges were different than marches for lines of cavalry, and tactical deployment of archers to cover flanks instead of cutting infantry advances was a major decision.

Let the players all have a chance to play, and have a chance to win, or at least make a fair choice about how to proceed.

Along these lines, I recommend the Honor Harrington series by David Weber for understanding "realistic" space combat.
It also begs the question: Where are the missiles? Missiles are more basic and than "vipers," and more useful than a laser gun that is designed to fail anyway, from the looks of these debates. (I agree with those that wonder how a weapon that IS LIGHT can miss what a weapon that IS MASS traveling near the speed of light can hit.  :21:)

Dadds I actually one time months and months ago when I was doing a raid had someone I was raiding speed up the attack time from their end so I would hit them even faster.  This was with like a 3-4 min timer as it was.  All I could think was man what an idiot lol.

I got no issue with attack timers in games. But it is how this one is done that I have an issue.  I used to play a game called ogame a lot. They had attack timers. But the timers was actually how long it would take for a fleet to reach the planet they were attacking.  The time was based on the slowest ships in the fleet.  Now the target couldn't see the timer if I recall. But there was a way to track fleets. It involved a device on moons. Though Moons were hard to get.  Using these it was actually possible to track enemy fleets and actually plan ambushes on them.  The game's travel system and stuff were a lot different then astro.

My issue with the timers in the game is the length of them.  The timer becomes so ridiculously high that the only way to actually hit someone with a powerful ship or to take out a powerful installation is to hope they don't play anymore or use QP to speed up the attacks. To me that is a huge problem.  I do think having a cancel option isn't a bad idea simply because the battle hasn't even started yet. The timer is how long it takes to prepare for battle. Though I honestly can't see why it would take so dang long to prepare for the battle.

I will make a note to add some more explanations to how the battle works and how damage absorption works, as we get more weapons that absorb or penetrate trough defenses it may get confusing.

The damage shown in the battle report is the damage supposed  to hit the target. Any damage that gets absorbed because of the laser / railgun vs. armor / shields efficiency will be decreased from the supposed damage. So the battle report might show a bigger damage that actually gets to penetrate armor / shield. This may lead to some confusion.

Will see if maybe we can show the actual damage after absorption or find some better way of reporting it.

Based on this thread's age, it took almost two years for is very simple yet very important fact to be stated! There is actually no need to change it--now that we know for sure how it works, and now that it is officially announced.

I just don't understand how you expect players to know that the damage displayed is just the supposed damage and not the actual damage. It is so misleading.

There is also no formula shown whatsoever on how attack damage is calculated so the only thing that we players rely on is the battle report, and that turns out to be inaccurate. That inaccuracy don't matter much at lower levels, but at my railgun mk CD with 1209000 attack, they sure do.

Are there any other nasty surprises that we don't know of?

So why did it take to long for you to post on it? Why post now at all?  Also you should really make it show the actual damage because I always assumed the damage we saw was the real damage. I had no reason to think otherwise. With how long it took for you to reply though it makes me wonder if sometimes you got the brains of a Slowpoke. (Yes I made a pokemon joke)

JJL he posts it now because his railgun CD ship attacked my corp ship VIGILANT and got bounced, and it cost him a pretty penny of QP lol. I have been saying for a while now the numbers dont seem to add up, especially with opti ships (eg bomber) on the potential damage they should inflict vs the actual damage inflicted...the numbers just seem so random it doesnt make sense. I see a reports of light hits doing not much less than direct hits sometimes, for eg. It starts to come down to a toss of a coin almost.

Wow he actually tried to hit someone with one of his weak ships.  I mean seriously I have been using his ships as target practice for ages. I would have thought those combat reports would have tipped him off.

Jam, he means me and not SirEmi. And just for the record, it didn't cost much as I got a refund! LOL

All the previous reports were inconclusive, and like what Dadds said, didn't add up. So I powered down my ship to put it to its limit. its power was below Dadds', but just had enough firepower to jump him. Or so I thought.

Total damage: 13,791,670
Total shields: 9,261,563

The damage is way above his limit. As I have railguns for many months now and used it in many battles, I always assumed that the damage displayed is the actual damage (who wouldn't??). In the end, I lost, but not because of my fault but because the game informed NO ONE that the damage players have been seeing FOR YEARS now is just the damage supposed to hit the target, not the actual damage. wtf right? LOL

All is well since I came back and kicked his ass for good. It was still 1v2 ships, and his interceptor didn't make a difference. I can and will always be kicking Dadds' weak ass easily, anytime I want.  :12:

So then this raises another question.  Why did he assume I was talking about and not SirEmi? I was referring to SirEmi taking so long to post back. No wonder I got confused.