01-14-2020, 03:44 AM | #21 |
GURPS FAQ Keeper
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
|
Re: Radical Alternatives: How SHOULD Size and Speed/Range Affect Chance to Hit?
Looking more into it, and trying to visualise some of the propositions upthread, I think I'm leaning towards visualising the (mostly non-streamlined) modelling of a shot as a comparison of three circles (as spherical cows in vacuum):
But when one uncertainty significantly exceeds the other, it seems like it makes skill irrelevant, but maybe that's not quite the case. After all, the positional uncertainty is likely to have a cross-sectional area proportional to the square of the target's 'instant' speed times (reaction delay + bullet flight time). Because as a spherical cow in a vacuum, the target would hypothetically jerk in a random direction at non-enhanced speed, and the shooter would try to adjust for that. And the adjustment speed can perhaps be said to depend on skill level adjusted by gun unwieldiness (Bulk). This seems to be heading towards the idea of the comparison consisting of picking the worst out of the two comparisons: gun skill + weapon accuracy vs. (quadratic-modifier) range, or gun skill + handling adjustment - flight time penalty vs. (quadratic-modifier) target's sudden-movement speed. This seems to be heading towards invalidating the relevance of target dodge under some circumstances (when flight time is low but distance contributes more than sudden movements when it comes to the uncertainty circle). |
01-14-2020, 09:58 AM | #22 |
Join Date: Mar 2014
|
Re: Radical Alternatives: How SHOULD Size and Speed/Range Affect Chance to Hit?
Invalidating the effect of random movement sure, but that is not all dodging. Dodging away from where you are predicting the attack to come (rather than a random direction) can still be a dominating factor. If done perfectly, it could even make the probability of hits zero.
|
01-14-2020, 10:31 AM | #23 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: Radical Alternatives: How SHOULD Size and Speed/Range Affect Chance to Hit?
Flight time isn't really relevant except that it increases target positional uncertainty; if you can't see incoming projectiles, any pattern that's larger than your evasion radius and lacks identifiable gaps (such as hard cover you can duck behind) won't allow meaningful evasion (note that if you can see incoming projectiles, evasion beyond a certain distance will be 100%. This is rarely an issue for bullets vs infantry, but can be a problem for archery and unguided artillery against targets with radar).
|
01-14-2020, 03:08 PM | #24 | |
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: Radical Alternatives: How SHOULD Size and Speed/Range Affect Chance to Hit?
Quote:
Are there real situations where a target with radar can dodge artillery, or just hypothetical ones? I can't think of anything I'd expect to be able to be targeted by artillery that could detect unguided artillery shells and then maneuver around them except maybe small (and comparatively agile) ships. Aircraft in flight aren't targets for that kind of thing, and I didn't think most ground-based radars could pick up and run on a few seconds notice.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
|
01-14-2020, 04:11 PM | #25 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, NZ
|
Re: Radical Alternatives: How SHOULD Size and Speed/Range Affect Chance to Hit?
The big strategic bombers had 40+ yard wingspans and were over 30 yards long. That's an easy SM+8. HT gives both the Mustang and the Fw190 as SM+6.
__________________
Rupert Boleyn "A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history." |
01-14-2020, 04:20 PM | #26 | |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: Radical Alternatives: How SHOULD Size and Speed/Range Affect Chance to Hit?
Quote:
Naval gunfire. Flight time could exceed a minute in battleship duels. |
|
01-14-2020, 05:56 PM | #27 |
Join Date: Mar 2008
|
Re: Radical Alternatives: How SHOULD Size and Speed/Range Affect Chance to Hit?
|
01-14-2020, 08:08 PM | #28 |
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Re: Radical Alternatives: How SHOULD Size and Speed/Range Affect Chance to Hit?
3e sources thought of SM as a linear measure. I tend to think in Spaceships terms these days where SM is firmly tied to mass. Spaceships SM+3 is 3 tons, SM+4 is 10 tons and SM+5 is 30 tons. SM+8 would be 1000 tons.
__________________
Fred Brackin |
01-15-2020, 02:31 AM | #29 | |
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
|
Re: Radical Alternatives: How SHOULD Size and Speed/Range Affect Chance to Hit?
Quote:
Turning into Torpedo spreads as well would I think count for this (as in trying to adjust your position so you are not where the attack is)
__________________
Grand High* Poobah of the Cult of Stat Normalisation. *not too high of course |
|
01-15-2020, 08:56 AM | #30 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, NZ
|
Re: Radical Alternatives: How SHOULD Size and Speed/Range Affect Chance to Hit?
Given we're talking about hitting the thing, size matters here, not mass, and aeroplanes are not very dense (especially WWII aircraft) and are thus large for their mass.
__________________
Rupert Boleyn "A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history." |
Tags |
range, ranged combat, reality check, size, ssrt |
|
|