01-15-2020, 09:00 AM | #31 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, NZ
|
Re: Radical Alternatives: How SHOULD Size and Speed/Range Affect Chance to Hit?
Turning into or away from torpedo spreads is more about hoping they miss either side, but can also mess up their target solution if you spot them very far away (not the common event). Usually you wanted to turn away, because most torpedoes weren't that much faster than a warship, so you might well manage to increase the range to the point where they ran out of fuel. All this assumes you weren't in a nice tight formation with friends, of course - in that case you just got to suck it up and take the hit.
__________________
Rupert Boleyn "A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history." |
01-15-2020, 05:15 PM | #32 | |
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: Radical Alternatives: How SHOULD Size and Speed/Range Affect Chance to Hit?
Quote:
I believe there was radar that could be used to direct guns and to spot the fall of your own shells at night. I've never heard of radar of that time being used to track incoming shells.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
|
01-15-2020, 11:54 PM | #33 | |
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
|
Re: Radical Alternatives: How SHOULD Size and Speed/Range Affect Chance to Hit?
Quote:
(although it might not be just the one active defence roll in a vehicular combat system designed to show the detail of all that!)
__________________
Grand High* Poobah of the Cult of Stat Normalisation. *not too high of course |
|
01-16-2020, 01:12 AM | #34 |
Join Date: Apr 2013
|
Re: Radical Alternatives: How SHOULD Size and Speed/Range Affect Chance to Hit?
The captain of HMS Repulse described dodging torpedoes as being "like an interesting game" until the Japanese finally got a good cross drop.
|
01-16-2020, 02:21 AM | #35 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, NZ
|
Re: Radical Alternatives: How SHOULD Size and Speed/Range Affect Chance to Hit?
That's probably reasonable for many campaigns.
__________________
Rupert Boleyn "A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history." |
01-16-2020, 02:41 AM | #36 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, NZ
|
Re: Radical Alternatives: How SHOULD Size and Speed/Range Affect Chance to Hit?
Aerial torpedoes, especially early in the war, had to be dropped quite close, and weren't terribly fast, thus you always knew where they'd been dropped (assuming good visibility), and the short range was countered by the slow speeds. Aerial torpedoes alone were quite poor at sinking battleships - it generally took a great many, plus lots of bombs (from dive bombers by preference) to sink a battleship that was free to manoeuvre. The real killer only turned up late in the war - remote controlled glide bombs, as used to sink the battleship Roma.
__________________
Rupert Boleyn "A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history." |
01-17-2020, 10:29 AM | #37 |
Join Date: Aug 2008
|
Re: Radical Alternatives: How SHOULD Size and Speed/Range Affect Chance to Hit?
Vicky, you make the assumption that shots fired approximate a uniform distribution, which is not the case. They will be clustered more densely around the actual target and become less dense as you look further out. So the size of the target won't have a quadraric effect on hit chance.
Let's assume a normal distribution of distance from bullseye with a standard deviation of 1 unit. If the target is 1 unit radius, the shooter has about a 68% chance of hitting. If we double the target's radius, he now has a 95% chance of hit. Adding another 1 unit to radius increases his odds of hit to 99.8%. He'll never hit 100%. Now that addresses target size. Distance effects I'm not sure of. It would definitely increase the standard deviation of the final spread, but at what rate, I don't know. The shooter's own ability to be on target plus the effects of atmospheric conditions would be factors, though.
__________________
Buy My Stuff! Free Stuff: Dungeon Action! Totem Spirits My Blog: Above the Flatline. |
01-17-2020, 11:01 AM | #38 | |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: Radical Alternatives: How SHOULD Size and Speed/Range Affect Chance to Hit?
Quote:
|
|
01-17-2020, 03:45 PM | #39 |
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Oz
|
Re: Radical Alternatives: How SHOULD Size and Speed/Range Affect Chance to Hit?
It's a bivariate normal, so the chi-squared distribution simplifies to an exponential distribution. In the general case the pattern is ellipsoidal, but assuming that the vertical and horizontal dispersions are uncorrelated and have the same variance you get the result that the chance id a given hit falling more than a distance from the centre of the pattern falls off exponentially with the distance.
__________________
Decay is inherent in all composite things. Nod head. Get treat. |
01-24-2020, 08:43 AM | #40 | |
Join Date: Dec 2013
|
Re: Radical Alternatives: How SHOULD Size and Speed/Range Affect Chance to Hit?
Quote:
Code:
P(Hit) = 1 - exp((2σ/x)^-2) Often we'll want to decompose σ into two parts: the angular dispersion α and the range r, or in other words: Code:
P(Hit) = 1 - exp((2αr/x)^-2) Code:
A = ln(αr/x) = ln(α) +ln(r) + ln(1/x) P(Hit) = 1 - exp((2*exp(A))^-2) Where things get tricky is when we want to be more accurate about σ. |
|
Tags |
range, ranged combat, reality check, size, ssrt |
|
|