There is no difference between miss and dodge, its all in your head. I understand that you are confused, but the only way to change it is to remove the text that says "dodge" and replace it with "miss"
I personally don't think its worth the effort to change. Its a game, its not a combat simulator... its not trying to model all the intricacies such as whose fault it is that the attack didn't connect (which will not be absolute anyways, something like 25% dodge, 75% miss, how do you represent that to the user?)
Oh FFS. I'm not confused. I understand how they calculate chance to hit and that there is no actual difference between a dodge and a miss during gameplay and that the game doesn't distinguish between the two. That's exactly why I said it may just be a UI issue.
My point is that it is logically inconsistent for a unit with ZERO DODGE to dodge repeatedly. For people that aren't die hard followers of the game, the people beyond the beta community that SD is hoping to attract by putting out a 90+ meta critic game, this is the sort of thing that will piss them off.
Case in point this morning: a dog, 0 Dodge, vs. my Sovereign, 39 Accuracy which works out to a 39% chance to hit. The dog dodged 7 times in a row. Statistically that's not very likely (about 3% of the time). Combine that with the fact that the dog has ZERO DODGE, and it doesn't make sense, especially if you consider it from the perspective of an average, non-beta testing non-forum going player. The fact that the 7 reported dodges were really just because of my Sovereign's shitty accuracy is irrelevant.
In their mind: "How the hell can this 0 dodge POS dog dodge me so much. ARRRGGGGHHH. It's just a f****** dog and I'm a magical hero!!! This game doesn't make sense."
This is the sort of thing that leads new players to not trust the underlying mechanics of the game. If you look at the stats of a unit and they have a 0 in something, you are going to assume that they either can't do whatever that 0 represents or you are going to assume that they do it badly. Either way, reporting that impossible/rare outcome as feedback multiple times in a row does not engender trust with the user, because the game is giving them feedback that they have been told not to expect (by the 0 in the units stats).
Maybe they don't want to do anything about it, and that's fine too (though I disagree). But my argument isn't based on my not understanding the mechanics of the game or my being confused. It's based on a pretty simple fact: The outcome players are told to expect pre-swing and the outcome they see post-swing are, in this case, potentially jarringly out of sorts. From a UI design principle perspective, that's a terrible outcome.
