Absurdly Bad Battle Logic

I know this subject has been raised many times before, but in the interest of trying to convince the powers that be to address this sooner rather than later, I am showing another example of the TERRIBLE logic that is currently in place for determining the outcome of battles.

Below is a screen snapshot of a battle report for a battle between my ship (on the left) and a pirate fleet of 3 ships which have no defences and 2 beam attack each (on the right).  My ship has a beam attack strength of 31.50 yet, in each of its first 5 attacks, it "randomly" received attack values of 3, 1, 1, 1, and 3.  The odds of being in the bottom 10% of possible attack values 5 times in a row is 1 in 100,000 so any argument that attack values are randomly generated between 1 and the maximum value of 31.50 is clearly false.  To make it even worse, each of the 3 pirate ships, which only have an attack strength of 2, had attack values that were much higher than 2.  I have read your argument that, in order to avoid infinitely long battles, each attack must do at least 1 damage, but that argument does not hold water when 1 side in a battle is clearly superior.  You should be able to do a quick assessment at the beginning of a battle whether probability-based logic should be used (which players can understand and accept)  or the logic to avoid long battles should be used.

I believe that the people that designed the battle logic were well intentioned, but the result (which is what really matters) is incomprehensibly terrible.  My ship should have destroyed all 3 pirate ships with little or no damage at all.  I do not understand how you can possibly support the argument that 3 weak pirates would do 29 damage to my ship before they were destroyed after receiving a total of 31 damage.

Please, please, please get this fixed A.S.A.P!!!