Hi, thanks for your response. I know about RNGs, my bachelor's degree is in cs and I spent ~20 years working in IT including ~10 as a programmer. When you target an opponent a box appears with a ? icon at the bottom. If you click on it, it displays modifiers to your chance to hit (offensive and defensive). I think it is all of them ASSUMING you have dissected your opponent. This may explain some of the inconsistencies I noticed. If true, it also implies you cannot get an accurate number for opposition that cannot be dissected (which I think is true for some of the robotic opponents, someone can fact check me on this). In reference to "save scumming", it isn't necessary to the degree you suggest assuming you turn on the option that generates a new (quasi) random result each time you repeat the action called "save scumming" :-) under the 2nd wave settings. Since my initial post I tried keeping a simple log (I broke the hit %s into 10% levels and tracked hits and misses) over several missions to see if the displayed percentages were in the ball park of what they should be. They seem to be. I was a little frustrated with this result because it failed to explain what I at least thought I was seeing as I played. But something else occurred to me. Maybe what I was seeing were peculiar patterns versus an overall inconsistency. As a (simplifide) example, if I flip a coin a 1000 times and the results come out roughly 50-50 you might assume the behavior is what was expected. This is similar to my first test. But what if I told you among those 1000 flips on 10 occasions I got 50 consecutive heads and 50 consecutive tail streaks. This might be what I am seeing. I am going to again use some simplified tracking to see if this is the case. In regards to your "under the hood" section, I understand and agree with all of it. But let me suggest that if the game consistently produces "streaks" versus a more even distribution the majority of the time then it is fair to say there is a problem.