Quote:
Originally Posted by hcobb
Fact checking that:
Elephant is up to ten hexes at up to 15,000 pounds while the above says 10,000 pounds.
Curve fitting in excel gives that the best fit is 300 pounds times the size in hexes raised to the 1.7th power.
14 hex dragon is then 13 short tons which is within the high end range estimates for T-Rex.
Code:
Hexes Actual # Calc # Calc ST
1 300 300 14
2 1000 975 25
3 2000 1942 36
4 3167 46
7 8200 74
10 15000 15036 100
14 30800 26640 133
|
The best fit may be found by using the exponent 1.7, but surely the most natural would be raising it to 1.5? I'm not good with these sorts of physical estimates, but area is square and mass should be very, very roughly linear in terms of volume, which is cubic.
Anyway, the predicted ST numbers are uniformly higher for dragons. At size 14, the prediction is fully a third higher than RAW. (It's a little worse than that at 2 hexes.)
If you use 1.5 instead of 1.7, you get the following results.
Code:
Hexes Actual Wt Calc Pred ST RAW ST Error
1 300 300 14 12 0.15
2 1000 849 24 16 0.33
3 2000 1559 32
4 ? 2400 40 30 0.25
7 ? 5556 61 60 0.01
10 ? 9487 80
14 ? 15715 102 100 0.02
These are closer the the dragon ST in RAW, at least at the higher end. The two hex is still puny in RAW. The estimate is 1/3 higher at two hexes and a quarter higher at four hexes, but above that it's spot on.
(I wasn't trying to prove anything about what the "right" relation should be, since I'm not committed to there being a right relation, but if you need one, this seems better. The weights are lower, but I don't reckon weight really matters.)
I've no idea whether a T-Rex is a 14 hex critter or not. A lot of the length is in a narrow tail. Hard for me to estimate that.