at the most basic level, without upgrades, each defense type halves the damage of the weapon.  It rounds up.

basically, double-hit-points against a single type of attack.  Tech will make hitpoints more valuable.

No, it doesn't, unfortunately in my opinion.

Your description does appear to still be correct in latest crusade

Thanks for the replies.

For further understanding are the calculations done per launcher hard point/defense hardpoint or (total offence)/(total defense).  I would assume totals.

examples:

6 point beam v 24 point shields (4 generators) would take between 6 and 24 (max at 1 dmg per shot) shots to knock down. (using the supplied example of 3-n randomness)

or

50 point (multiple beams) v 24 point shield = 1 salvo or perhaps at most 2 if the rng favors you.

I think I am concluding from this that more firepower is preferable to defensive  components at this time.  Certainly early in the game where components are heavy.  This also kind of explains why Starbase upgrades are just about worthless after about turn 100.

The combat system of GC3 was never going to be its strong suit, but it really is disappointing just how pointless most of it's potential is.

Only 3 roles matter, defenses are generally pointless, if they did matter, it's better to get jamming anyways, and carriers are poorly implemented in my opinion.

Oh and the game generally favors large ships only and has no mechanic to balance fleets or individual designs. 

Perhaps things will improve when Frogboy stats looking at getting the AI to design it's own ships (he mentioned something about this recently).

Ideally, I think we may need to ditch roles and basically build those roles out as part of hull sizes. Similar to homeworld games. 

Tiny = extra effective vs large and huge

Small = extra effective vs Tiny

Medium = extra effective against Small

Large and Huge = extra effective against Medium

The above isn't a perfect system or anything, it's a 30 second idea... but it actually starts encouraging somewhat balanced fleets. Which I think would be more fun.

In GCII I was very effective concentrating on defense and hit points.  My fleets would survive to shoot twice - a lot like having twice as many fleets.  Now I find that rather than a "next generation" of GC, in terms of combat it is an entirely different game where that strategy doesn't work.  IME even well defended ships will usually lose to a ship that is not nearly as well defended, but has some moderate edge in firepower. 

I do think the addition of roles and tactics in fleet combat is a good one.  But for SD to completely change the philosophy of ship design while maintaining the veneer of the old and not telling anyone is unconscionable.

You want to know what's missing from GCIII?  THE RULES.  There may be some, but they're secret.  I am becoming more an more disenchanted with this thing.  It's got so much potential that is being hidden under a bushel.

The section on roles is good, as I mentioned in another thread.  But the section on combat is perfunctory at best.  The section(s) on ship design are little more than recitations of Designer mechanics.  And there are topics (e.g. Administrators) that just aren't there. 

The problem with depending on a player-maintained wiki is that the players rarely know the logic behind game occurrences.  As far as I can determine, what is in the wiki is, in most cases, little more than a best guess.  It really needs Stardock participation.

Perhaps some of this is contained in a player guide, but I haven't found one or had one pointed out to me.

Interesting summary.  Thanks.